Secure Psychiatric Wards

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many places in secure psychiatric wards of hospitals they expect to provide in the coming three years; and how this compares with the numbers of mentally ill offenders in prisons.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, at present, local commissioners and providers plan to increase secure psychiatric beds by 1,091 between 2002-03 and 2005-06. Although these plans may be subject to amendment to reflect changing circumstances, they take into account the likely needs of severely mentally ill prisoners who may require transfer to such beds.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Are the Government fully seized of the seriousness of the situation now, given that there are at least 500 cases of acute mental illness among prisoners, that probably two-thirds or more of all prisoners have some kind of mental disorder, and that suicides are running at a rate of about 80 per year? Will the noble Lord's department consult urgently with the Home Office, not only for the good of individuals but to achieve easier and better prison management?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, our estimate is that 90 per cent of prisoners suffer from at least one of the five main categories of mental disorder, although the numbers who require transfer to an NHS bed is not on that scale. I agree with the substance of the noble Lord's question. We need to do much more, in co-operation with the Home Office and the NHS, to provide appropriate mental health services. The NHS can provide a great deal of support to the prison health service. I particularly commend the intensive mental health teams that we are now putting together to help the prison healthcare service in those areas.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, is my noble friend taking any steps to extend appropriate treatment for non-violent offenders with mental problems so that sentencers will have an alternative to sending them to prison, where many of them should never be?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friends who have responsibility for prison services have made clear that in many instances community sentences may be more appropriate. I agree that if NHS mental health services are available for such people, they can often provide a great deal of support and help. That has to be seen in the overall context of the NHS improving its mental health services. We have published a national service framework and we are investing more resources in mental health services. I am sure that that will provide the kind of support my noble friend requests.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the issue of resources. I recognise that this goes beyond his own department. We have a fairly desperate situation at the moment with 4,000 more prisoners than a year ago, some of them being forced into police cells and others being shunted around the country every evening as the courts close in a desperate search for a prison with space to hold them. This must all be unbudgeted expenditure. Will the Minister do his best to ensure that this expenditure is not at the expense of the treatment of mentally ill prisoners or the training and education programmes in prisons which are so crucial?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer for the Home Office in relation to the specific budget of the Prison Service. I understand the point made by the noble Lord. Certainly in respect of health services the NHS is determined to give as much support as it can to the prison healthcare service to ensure that the appropriate services are provided to prisoners. Joint assessments of the health needs of prisoners are now undertaken by individual prisons and the local NHS. We are hopeful that as a result of those assessments and the additional resources being put in by both the Home Office and the Department of Health, we will provide much enhanced health services for prisoners.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the protocol agreed between the Department of Health and the Prison Service, while helpful as far as it goes, does nothing to eliminate the delays which occur prior to the clinician in the receiving establishment accepting the prisoner and that much of the delay occurs earlier in the process of assessment? Will the regional prison health task force have power to commission surveys such as the one conducted by the West Midlands Forensic Psychiatric Service last year, in which it was shown that 32 per cent of the in-patients in prison would benefit from a transfer to psychiatric hospitals? Does he agree that if that survey were extended to the whole country and the results were repeated, it would show that there has been no improvement in the situation since John Reed gave evidence to the Select Committee in another place in April 2000?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that we need to look carefully at survey figures. I am not sure that I agree necessarily with the conclusions of the survey to which the noble Lord referred. The whole point of the prison and the local health service carrying out an assessment is to get much more precise information about the health needs of prisoners. I agree that there is a problem with prisoners awaiting a NHS mental health assessment. My understanding of the latest statistics for March this year is that 142 prisoners were awaiting a NHS mental health assessment. We need to take action to ensure that waiting is kept to a minimum. As to prisoners waiting for transfer, the figure for March was again 142. Of those, 39 had been waiting for more than three months. This is where the protocol comes into play because it focuses attention on prisoners waiting for more than three months. We are determined to take action to ensure that those waits are kept to a minimum.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the provisions of the mental health Bill are extremely controversial, not least in the way they affect prisoners with mental disorders. Will the Minister recommend to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the usual channels that there should be proper pre-legislative scrutiny of the mental health Bill via a Joint Standing Committee of both Houses?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I recognise the importance of the effective scrutiny of any mental health Bill that is brought before Parliament. The noble Lord will know that we have published a draft Bill in order to secure comments over the next two to three months for that very reason. If in due course a Bill is brought to Parliament, it will need particularly close scrutiny. I am sure that your Lordships' House will play a very important part in that. I shall of course pass on the noble Lord's comments to the usual channels.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, in the figures to which my noble friend referred, how many relate to women prisoners and how many relate to men?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we do not have the figures for the exact number of women who are part of the 142 waiting for assessment or the 142 waiting for transfer. However, most of the prisoners waiting for a transfer are men.

Variable Rate Mortgages

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proportion of mortgages for housing taken out in the United Kingdom are on a variable rate basis; and what was the equivalent proportion three years ago.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is estimated that 62 per cent of mortgages taken out for house purchases in the UK in 2001 were at a variable rate of interest. The equivalent for 1998 was 43 per cent. The number of fixed and variable rate mortgages in a specific year will be influenced by a number of factors. Consequently, the relative popularity of fixed and variable rate mortgages among home buyers in a particular year is not a reliable indicator of the corresponding figure for all outstanding loans.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does not the fact that the proportion of variable rate mortgages is so high in the UK mean that, if Britain were in the euro, the British economy would be much more sensitive to interest rate changes than other European economies? Has not a committee under a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Pennant-Rea, estimated that the UK economy is up to four times as sensitive to interest rate changes as other European economies? Has not Professor Eltis, of Oxford, estimated that if Britain were in the euro two-fifths of the changes in European interest rates would be felt within the UK economy? Is it not clear that Britain's mortgage market has to change before consideration could be given to joining the euro; and is it not clear from the figures given by the Minister that that change is not happening?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have waited eight weeks for a housing question to come along, but the Question turns out to be about the euro, not about housing. The issue raised in the Question is not the responsibility of my department—the Government do not give mortgages. All I can say to the former Chancellor is that I am armed with lots of statistics, including the levels of repossessions and mortgage interest rates when he was in office.
	For people buying homes, the market remains affordable. To give an example, the mortgage payments for households that have bought a house in the first quarter of 2002 amount to only 16 per cent of their income; the comparative figure in 1990 was 27 per cent.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, how could the Minister possibly have been briefed on this Question, given where it came from, without the possibility being raised that it might be about variable and fixed interest rates compared with those in Europe? Surely, when he returns to his department, he should complain at the highest level about the quality of his briefing, so that when he comes to answer Questions in this House he is properly briefed. If a government Minister does not have the answer to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Lamont, he should re-examine his brief very carefully.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is no problem. I am fully briefed on the situation, but I thought that it might be a genuine question about the housing needs of people in this country. As has repeatedly been made clear from this Dispatch Box, mainly by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, the Government are not going to give a running commentary on the five economic tests, and that is that.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the take-up of mortgage payment protection insurance among flexible rate borrowers is below average? Is he further aware that very few people with flexible mortgages make regular over-payments or one-off payments explicitly to guard against future health problems or unemployment? What plans do the Government have to assist home owners to be more secure? Have the Government considered introducing a mortgage benefit to help those who own their homes with housing costs, in the same way as housing benefit helps those who rent homes in the public and private sectors?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We now have flexible mortgages. Recent research sponsored by my department and the Council of Mortgage Lenders was published only a few days ago. It is true that flexible mortgages represent a rapidly growing share of mortgages in certain sectors of the market—particularly among those in the A-B economic class and those who have owned more than one property in the past. It is now known to people that mortgage flexibility can be used, for example, to avoid possible repossession in the future. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that in the future we shall face the kind of situation that occurred previously, when repossessions by lenders were running at 60,000 to 70,000 a year. At present, the figure stands at about 18,000 a year. So interest rates are a lot lower and there is a great deal more flexibility to pay more in good times and less in bad times. That evens out the situation, making it less likely that the threat of repossession will ever return to this country. We shall do what we can to push the idea of flexible mortgages.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, since the Minister has given me more or less the same reply on mortgage finance as he gave me the other day on the European arrest warrant, perhaps I may ask him another question about mortgage finance. Will he at least confirm that, despite the fact that official interest rates are higher in this country than in Europe, mortgage rates in this country—because of our competitive market—are lower than they are in Europe in many cases?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, present mortgage rates, even without the benefit of tax relief, are lower than they ever were in the early 1990s with tax relief. So they are a bargain. As the former Chancellor tempts me even further, I shall repeat what he himself said in his Mansion House speech in June. It is on the record. He said that, under the convergence tests, one of the supporting analyses will be concerned with assessing the behaviour of the housing market and its impact on consumption—and beyond that there is no need to go. That is all it is about—a running commentary on the five tests. Well, I am not doing it.

National Stadium

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made on completing agreements for the financing and construction of the proposed national stadium.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Football Association, whose project this is, made it clear on 22nd May that it would take up to 10 weeks from signing heads of agreement to reach financial close. Officials remain in close contact with the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd and we understand that good progress is being made by the FA on its commercial negotiations.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, does my noble friend understand that those of us who want to see a modern national stadium have little remaining faith in the ability of the FA to deliver it? Will he acknowledge that all that has really happened in the past six years is that the Wembley turf has been dug up? Are there not lessons to learnt here from the strength of the regions and their ability to deliver projects on time and on budget, as shown by the city of Birmingham in the case of Millennium Point and the world indoor athletics championships to be held next May, and, superbly, by the city of Manchester where the Commonwealth Games open tonight? Will my noble friend now blow the whistle on the Wembley fiasco and honour earlier undertakings to consider seriously the bid for the much better Birmingham Solihull site?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, fortunately, I do not answer for the Football Association from this Dispatch Box. Therefore, I can only say that my noble friend's comments will be communicated to the Football Association.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether it is now considered good practice in government circles, or more particularly in Sport England circles, not to commit lottery funds—in this case £120 million—to a project where the financing is not in place?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have made it very clear since last December that they set very stringent conditions for that part of the project which is in receipt of public money; namely, the £120 million contributed by Sport England for the site. Some of those conditions have been met. The condition for financial support, which is adequate and fully committed, has yet to be met. We shall see what happens when we come to the conclusion of that fourth condition.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly insists, he does not answer for the Football Association. Will he therefore tell us why the Government became so involved in making statements in favour of Wembley in the first place?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend wishes to go back a considerable way. I am not sure that that is fruitful. The contribution made by Sport England to the Wembley site has been £120 million, which is not enormously high by international standards for public funding of football stadia. Naturally, the Government are concerned that there should continue to be safeguards. That is why there is a staging agreement.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the noble Lord have any idea how long it took and how much it cost to erect the superb stadia which we saw being used for the World Cup in Japan and South Korea? Can he explain to the House why those countries can do it so much more quickly and cheaply than appears to be possible here?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have figures for a number of the stadiums built in Japan and Korea. Generally, they were built more quickly and more cheaply than is proposed for Wembley. However, they are also much smaller than Wembley. For example, the Sapporo stadium, which has received much well deserved praised, seats only 42,000.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, are not a number of the Japanese stadiums now in the process of being dismantled, as the Japanese Government took the view that they should exist for the period of the World Cup only and that the sites would then no longer be available for sports?
	On a separate issue, will my noble friend confirm the accuracy of reports in today's press that the Government will be making up their mind on whether to make a bid for the Olympics in 2012 on the basis of the experience with the Commonwealth Games, which we all hope and are confident will be a success? Does an Olympic bid depend on the success of the Commonwealth Games? Can he also confirm that if the Olympics come to Britain, the only site where they can be staged is London?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are two very different questions. First, a number of the Japanese stadiums were built in places where the population is not enough to sustain continuing spectator numbers. I think that some are being dismantled. I have not seen the reports in today's press about the Olympic Games in 2012, but it has been common knowledge that any bid for the Olympic Games in any year would have to be based on London.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that in the regions outside London there is genuine concern that yet another major international stadium appears to be going to London? If the FA fails to bring the project successfully to the next stage, will there come a time in the coming weeks when the Government reopen the Birmingham bid?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. It is a hypothetical question, but if that were to happen the question of a stadium in Birmingham certainly would have to be reopened.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that public money has been used, whether it comes from the National Lottery or elsewhere? Will the Government therefore assure us that a Minister will ultimately make sure that something happens to give us a national stadium no matter where and that a start will be made very shortly? At the moment, everybody is losing out.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the implication of public funding, which has come from Sport England, is that the Government should ensure that there are adequate safeguards. It does not mean that the Government should take over the direction of the project. It is important to understand that.

Iraq

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What developments there have been towards the re-establishment of a United Nations weapons inspectorate in Iraq.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission has been denied access to Iraq since its establishment in December 1999. We consistently urge Iraq to allow the return of weapons inspectors. Since March this year, the UN Secretary-General has held three rounds of talks with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in an attempt to break this impasse. Regrettably, Iraq continues to defy the UN by refusing to allow the inspectors in.

Lord Judd: My Lords, there is no argument about the fact that we are dealing with a cruel and sinister regime. The question is how we do so while protecting the people of Iraq who have suffered under it. Does my noble friend agree that in the absence of any progress on inspectors, before any momentum towards military action becomes irreversible there must be convincing evidence of its necessity and a clear statement of war aims, specific and explicit UN authorisation, an analysis of the regional and global implications, clarity about how the future stability of Iraq would be secured, realism about the cost of reconstruction and rehabilitation and how that would be met, and above all a determination at all costs to distinguish between the Saddam regime and the people of Iraq?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as we have repeatedly made clear, most recently on 18th June, no decision has been taken to launch military action. We are proceeding prudently and patiently in consultation with our allies. Her Majesty's Government are committed to ensuring that they always act in accordance with international law. Given that no decision has been taken to launch military action, many of my noble friend's questions are entirely hypothetical. I understand that it is not wise to give hypothetical answers from the Dispatch Box.
	My noble friend asked for convincing evidence. Her Majesty's Government have carried out detailed studies of quantities of material unaccounted for by UNSCOM inspectors that have potential applications in Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programme. They are as follows: up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, approximately 300 tonnes of which in the Iraqi chemical weapons programmes were unique to the production of VX nerve agent; up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical weapon agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent; and over 3,000 special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents. I hope that your Lordships agree that that gives us great evidence of the threat that we face. We shall release further material about this threat in due course.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the great problems that the House confronts is that it is either too early to discuss the issue of a possible invasion of Iraq because we do not yet have a decision, or too late because the decision has been taken, as indicated by the Prime Minister's answer to a question in another place when he referred to "when" that decision is taken, although he said later that that was a slip of the tongue? Does the Minister accept that one of the great problems that we confront is discussing on what basis we would be morally justified in a campaign that would almost certainly mean the death of many thousands of civilians and very probably the destruction of one of the oldest civilisations on earth? When will the Prime Minister feel able to publish evidence not of the possession of weapons of mass destruction—which are also possessed by Israel, Britain, France, Russia and many other countries—but of the intent to use them and the ability to deliver them? That is central to whether Britain would be morally justified in taking part in a military attack against Iraq.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has great international experience. She will know that it is not possible for me to say today when that information can be published. Much of the information is highly sensitive. We will publish what we can when we can. That is what the Prime Minister has said. I am pleased that the noble Baroness has also taken the opportunity to repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday and again this morning—that no decision has been taken to launch military action. The noble Baroness will also know that Her Majesty's Government would regard the use of force against any state as lawful if it had been authorised by the United Nations Security Council, if it were in the exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, or, exceptionally, if it were carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, both previous questions rightly raised the issue of a dossier to give us more information on Saddam Hussein's involvement both in weapons of mass destruction and in Al'Qaeda terrorism. I fully understand the noble Baroness's position about no decision being taken. However, can she assure us that the dossier, which has now been promised by the Prime Minister, is forthcoming and that if it is available in the next few weeks it will be properly circulated to noble Lords and to the other place although Parliament will be in recess? Can she confirm reports that, even before the final decision, the British military authorities are having talks in London now with their Australian counterparts—the Australian SAS—about the various positions they would take up in the proposed blockade which will be operated from Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar and other areas around Iraq?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the Prime Minister will ensure that the information dossier will be in the public domain as soon as the time is right. However, I cannot confirm the discussions that the noble Lord asks about.

Adoption and Children Bill

Lord Campbell of Alloway: rose to move, That the Adoption and Children Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4, 44, 46, 48 to 51 and 139(4) to (7).

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the wake of yesterday's tidal wave of criticism of the Procedure Committee, it has to be said at the outset that there is no criticism of the decision of the usual channels, on the information before them before Second Reading, to favour committal of the Bill to Grand Committee.
	Proposal 17 in the 5th Report of the Procedure Committee—that such a decision should be made by the usual channels and considered by the House after Second Reading—has yet to be embodied in Standing Order 47. If it had been so embodied, no doubt a split committal would or should have been made as is sought by this Motion for recommittal. Paragraph 20 of the Procedure Committee report affirms that split committal is an extant procedure. Indeed, Amendment No. 14 to the report, moved yesterday by my noble friend Lord Elton, extended that concept of split committal.
	It would have been apparent after Second Reading that the amendments moved in Grand Committee to the clauses referred to in this Motion raise contentious matters of principle of general public importance concerning the adoption of children which, as such, ought to be debated on the Floor of the House in Committee, before Report. Why is this a matter of general public importance? There are now 14,000 children who have been in care over five years seeking adoption. A letter dated 23rd July which has been placed in the Library by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, confirms that there is a very substantial dearth of approved adopters.
	Not only is there no criticism of the decision of the usual channels; there is no criticism of the work of the Grand Committee in which some debate ensued on the amendments to these clauses. The Official Report of the debate on a multitude of probing amendments on seven Marshalled Lists shows that, under the benevolent aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, there was the type of debate customarily associated with Grand Committee. It served an invaluable purpose. It was an opportunity for a constructive exchange of views on detailed aspects of government policy; to redefine issues; to rethink one's own thoughts; but not to retable many of those amendments or substantially to revise others. Within the traditional remit of non-contentious affairs—the clauses discussed, but not these clauses—the Grand Committee was an unqualified success and served its purpose.
	However, on these contentious clauses on matters of principle, such was not and could never have been the case. What are these matters of principle? Amendments to Clauses 48 to 50 and Clause 139 sought to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples and joint and single homosexuals from the proposed adoption regime. Amendments to Clauses 46 and 51 sought to slight the practice established by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House as to dispensation with parental consent. Clauses 4 to 44 sought to qualify on the face of the Bill the exercise of discretion on implementing regulations that are not to be available until some two years after Royal Assent.
	Surely on such matters of general public importance, the Back-Benches, Cross-Benches and Spiritual Benches—of whatever opinion on the merits, which is immaterial—may well wish to reassert the entitlement of unrestricted debate in Committee on the Floor of the House, which is not available at any other stage of a Bill. In this context, reference could be made to the paper of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth which was sent to the Procedure Committee, but not considered by it, as appears from col. 451 of the Official Report.
	If this Motion were to commend itself, Royal Assent could still be granted before the end of this Session, and statute which could not be implemented for two years after Royal Assent would not be delayed from taking effect. There has been no lobby. This is not an assault upon the citadel, either to be seen as such or to be repelled as such. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Adoption and Children Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4, 44, 46, 48 to 51 and 139(4) to (7).—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, many of us recognise my noble friend's altruism in bringing this Motion before the House. I understand that the relevant provisions of the Bill are substantially in the form in which he would wish to see them. Nevertheless he raises an important point.
	For myself I believe that recommittal—a rerunning of part of the Committee stage—is appropriate when a material change has taken place to the relevant provisions of a Bill as a result of something that has happened since the first Committee stage took place. But that is not so in this case. By definition, at the end of Grand Committee, the Bill remains in the same condition—it has not been amended—as it was at Second Reading. The decision to send the Bill to a Grand Committee, whether one agrees with it or not—obviously, different views can be held on that—was taken by the House. I believe that the House, having taken the decision, should stick to it in the absence of material changes which might cause us to recommit.
	My noble friend's Motion also raises the question of whether we should have split Committee stages. That matter belongs to the debate we had yesterday rather than to today's debate and, obviously, it is possible for two views to be held on it. However, that is not what my noble friend is suggesting at the moment. He is suggesting that we should recommit a section of the Bill. If we had intended to split the Bill, we should have done so at the time we took the original decision on how it should be dealt with in Committee.
	For those reasons, although my noble friend has done us a service in bringing the Motion—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. With respect, my noble friend has made a mistake. In paragraph 20 of the 5th Report split committal is accepted as an extant procedure by the Procedure Committee.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not commend or otherwise the principle of split committees. As I say, that matter belongs to the debate we had yesterday or to a future debate. However, that is not what my noble friend's Motion proposes. It proposes the recommittal of certain clauses which have been considered in Grand Committee; that is, a second Committee stage for the relevant clauses. That is slightly different from saying that we should discuss certain clauses in a Grand Committee and others in a Committee of the Whole House although we may be able to do that with other Bills. However, as I say, that is not the decision that is before us. For those reasons I remain extremely cautious about my noble friend's Motion.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I understand and appreciate the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, attaches to this whole area of our Committee debate. However, in many ways we were able to have a much more constructive debate in Grand Committee than we might have had on the Floor of the House, partly because we did not have "set pieces" to contend with as so often happens during debate on controversial subjects on the Floor of the House as we all know from past experience. We were able to have a proper dialogue and discussion. No one was debarred from speaking. I read Hansard to check the number of speakers in the relevant debate. Some 16 people participated, many more than once. It certainly was not a short debate; it lasted over two hours. I do not think that there is a case for recommittal. I refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in that regard.
	However, there is a much more important point here; namely, that this is an extremely important Bill as a whole. To pick out one area would discredit the rest of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, the Bill concerns disadvantaged children and the number who need to be adopted and cared for. The whole of the Bill has to be seen in that context; it would be a shame to consider one part in isolation. It is almost impossible to debate the relevant clauses if one has not listened to or taken part in some of the other debates. For example, on a previous day's discussion on the Bill in Grand Committee we had a long debate on the criteria under which people should be able to adopt. That discussion was fundamental to debating the measure in respect of unmarried couples. As I say, I do not think that one can isolate certain parts of the Bill. That would do a disservice to the Bill as a whole. I hope that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will not be accepted.

Earl Russell: My Lords, having taken part in the debate in the Grand Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, refers, I wish to say that I agree with everything she said about the quality, the standard and the general good manners of that debate. However, I do not think that it was heard by a number of those who will cast votes which will ultimately resolve this matter.
	I do not think that the case of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rests simply on the importance of the matter. Many important matters have been resolved in the House on Report and will continue to be so. I do not think that there is any noble Lord I am aware of in this Chamber who would wish to have two major debates in the Chamber on this one issue. I think that we all agree it should be debated once and resolved in the Lobbies. But the question is: which procedure is likely to ensure a debate which is more honourable, more peaceful, more orderly and more to the honour of this House? To me it is that rather than any argument of importance that would support the case for having the matter resolved by the Committee procedure.
	It is a debate which will be hard fought in the best spirit of this House. There will be, for example, a number of statistics put forward whose base people will wish to question and whose significance they will wish to argue about. All those matters are much better resolved in a Committee procedure where noble Lords can come back on each others' speeches, raise points and perhaps narrow the issues of disagreement than they would be in the Report procedure with its potential for a large number of possibly disorderly interventions. For that reason I believe that to accept the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would serve the honour and the convenience of the House.

Lord Elton: My Lords, before we leave the question of a split procedure, I acknowledge that last night the House convincingly decided that it did not wish to recommit individual clauses from Bills brought from another place into Grand Committee when those clauses had not been discussed at all in another place. I still think—and I think that on reflection noble Lords will agree—that such clauses—there are no fewer than 27 in the Bill on asylum which is before this House at the moment—need to be treated in a different way from other clauses. Therefore, when a Bill comes to a Grand Committee in that form, I suggest that those clauses which come to us green from the draftsman's hand should be diverted into a Committee of the Whole House. I can find no other forum in which to advance that to your Lordships and therefore I say it now.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, having heard the procedural points which have been made this afternoon, I wish to make a point about the Adoption and Children Bill as a whole. In the context of that Bill it would be difficult to discuss the future of children only in part. I defer to the great knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but the particular clauses he identifies are extraordinarily contentious. However, they cannot be viewed as being separate from those which concern the assessment of children and are linked to guidance and regulation. Therefore, the debate should concern the Bill as a whole and not certain clauses. I should be extremely unhappy if those clauses—which I personally do not regard as more important than assessing families, acknowledging some of the very complex situations in which children find themselves and ensuring that those children have safe passage through those situations—were separated out.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I promised the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Russell that I would listen to their arguments on what is obviously an important procedural point. Both have made interesting cases. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Russell that colleagues in this House can read Hansard and can therefore get an indication of the range of discussions which took place in Grand Committee. His argument concerning the distinction between Committee and Report is, if it is an argument, one that should be put forward when the Bill is sent to Grand Committee rather than, as is the case now, when we are discussing recommittal.
	I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that recommittal is a procedure which should be used sparingly and only if a particularly good case has been made. On this occasion, I do not believe that such a case has been made. If the noble Lord intends to press his Motion to a vote, I shall have to recommend to my noble friends not to support him.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I confess to being extremely puzzled by two things that have been said. First, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, twice cited paragraph 20 of the report of the Procedure Committee as being in favour of the split committal of Bills. I do not have the report in front of me, but my clear recollection is that the Procedure Committee came out very strongly against the split committal of Bills, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, suggested and advised that such a procedure be adopted.
	Secondly, I am amazed to hear the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggest that the right way to deal with the matter is to have a vote in Committee. Time after time we are subjected to a policy from his Front Bench that votes will never take place during Committee stage, even when we have been through a matter at great length. Whether or not one agrees with that policy, it is somewhat surprising to hear that somewhat contradictory suggestion coming from immediately behind the noble Earl's Chief Whip.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I have no argument with my party's policy. But a vote on recommittal is not identical to a vote on first committal.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much welcome the interest taken by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in the Bill's proceedings. There is no question that his knowledge and expertise were of enormous help in allowing us to debate at Second Reading and in Grand Committee these very important issues with a great deal of care and clarity.
	However, I believe, in the light of experience, that the Grand Committee process has been both appropriate and extremely valuable as a means of scrutinising this important Bill. Although items in the Bill are no doubt controversial, it is worth making the point that the broad intent to improve adoption processes and procedures in this country has received considerable support from all parts of the House. The Grand Committee process has allowed us to debate those items with a great deal of scrutiny and care. We have had the benefit of more than 26 hours of detailed and thorough debate over seven sessions. In total, more than 160 amendments have been considered.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, focused our attention, in particular, on the clauses concerning joint adoption by unmarried couples. I say to the noble Lord that that matter was debated very carefully at Second Reading, and the House decided that the Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The issue was debated thoroughly in Grand Committee. It spanned three Committee sessions and a total of four-and-a-half hours of debate—longer than any other issue raised in the Bill. Twenty-two Members of your Lordships' House spoke in debate during those discussions.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that there should be only one major debate on these issues, and he suggested that the Committee procedure would be more appropriate than Report. However, I do not believe, given the usual tolerance and good manners which prevail in your Lordships' House, that we cannot deal on Report with the issues that he raised. I am sure that we shall be able to do so.
	Finally, I reiterate a point made by my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. The issues of unmarried couples and of a local authority's duty to provide adoption support services are important. But many other debates took place on other matters, such as placement orders and consent orders, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has not suggested that they should come before your Lordships' House in a recommittal. From my own viewpoint, I do not see that the issue of unmarried couples is more significant than the other issues that we debated significantly in Grand Committee.
	It is up to each noble Lord to make up his mind on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has made a significant contribution to our debates thus far. But I believe that the Grand Committee scrutiny has been very thorough.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, from the speech of my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, who is a member of the usual channels, it was plain that, if this matter had been put to the usual channels now or at any time, they would have questioned the recommittal. They would have been against it without having heard what has been argued today and without the benefit of having read the opinion of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. This is not a question of whether my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley or I are right. It is not a question of right and wrong; it is a question of the sense of the House.
	In answer to the noble Baroness, I take the view that these clauses are the cornerstone of the Bill. But the argument has been heard. These unusual and wholly exceptional circumstances would not create any precedent. In that context, when the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, looks at the report, he will see the words,
	"there is no procedural reason why a motion to commit a bill should not do as Lord Jenkin has proposed".
	As I read it, the committee is expressly accepting split committals as an excellent procedure. The noble Viscount may read it otherwise. However, that is not the point.

Lord Carter: My Lords, this is not a split Committee; it is a recommittal, and there is a very big difference. At the outset, a split Committee takes part of a Bill in Grand Committee and the rest of it on the Floor of the House. We did that in relation to the Transport Bill in the previous Parliament. We spent one day in Grand Committee putting all the government amendments into the Bill, and the Bill was then reprinted and dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House in the Chamber. The noble Lord is confusing a split Committee and a recommittal.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord does not seem to appreciate that the decision was made before Second Reading. It was a perfectly proper decision because there was no reason to suppose that these matters of principle, which should be discussed on the Floor of the House, would arise. There was only a proposal to amend the procedure so that after Second Reading the decision as to recommittal could be taken. But the House could not recommit. No such suggestion could have been made because, on the information available, there was no reason why that should happen. Then it was too late to do anything. I took advice. The only way of dealing with the matter, if the House wished to exercise its entitlement, was to do as I have done. That was to seek a recommittal, which is exactly the same as what would have been a split committal. There is no other way to deal with it. However, if the sense of the House is against me, it would be quite wrong to divide the House. This is a matter for the sense of the House. So, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Animal Health Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Moran: My Lords, I should perhaps say a few words on this Motion because I was responsible for moving the amendment to hold up the Committee stage of the Bill which your Lordships accepted on 26th March. The Government propose today to go ahead with the Committee stage, which the letter, though hardly the spirit, of the amendment allows them to do. As always, I declare my interest in that my wife has a small herd of cattle in Wales; but we have no sheep.
	I am sorry that I was not able to be present last Thursday when the House discussed the Government's Motion to take Part 2 of the Bill on scrapie out of turn. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was kind enough to give me two apologies, which of course I accept. I was only puzzled when, after the Committee stage appeared on the Order Paper, I was approached by the House authorities who were clearly surprised that I had not been consulted. They spoke to the Government Whips, after which they told me that I would receive a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and that I should respond, making it clear whether I agreed with what was proposed. I waited for the letter. Although it is dated 17th July, it reached me only half an hour ago. So I have not been able to respond.
	The Minister explained to the House last week that the Government used the normal procedure, by which I suppose he meant the usual channels. So it appeared to me then that, as a Cross-Bencher, I did not need to be consulted, at any rate until the very last moment. The letter of mine, which my noble friend Lady Mar kindly read out my letter during her speech on 18th July, was originally intended as a brief for those who had supported me on 26th March. I should not like the House to think that I am now going to communicate with it only by letter rather than in person. But I am grateful to my noble friend for making my position clear and for adding her own eminently reasonable views.
	The Minister said that the Government had already considered the reports. To have done so properly in the nine days which had elapsed since the Royal Society's report was published and the three days after the Anderson report came out was indeed surprising, especially since, as your Lordships will have seen, Sir Brian Follett, chairman of the Royal Society's inquiry, is reported as saying that by switching to vaccination,
	"we are in the process of turning around a ship of policy that has been sailing for decades".
	That was a very significant remark.
	Part 1 of the present Bill is based entirely on legitimising and extending the policy of mass slaughter. Long ago, on 14th January, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said of a future mass slaughter policy that:
	"The last outbreak brought the rural community in this country to its knees. It brought many families to a state of despair and many farming families to a position in which they were on the verge of open defiance of the law. I do not believe that they or the wider public will stand for a similar policy in the future".—[Official Report, 14/1/02; col. 895.]
	I am sure she was right. Six million animals were slaughtered. The direct cost to the public sector was, according to the National Audit Office, estimated at over £3 billion. The cost to the private sector was estimated at over £5 billion. To do all that again must be unacceptable.
	I believe that in the light of the Royal Society's report a thorough rethink is necessary and that a new and radically different Bill needs to be introduced in the autumn. My noble friends Lord Bledisloe and Lord Williamson of Horton made important points on this issue when they spoke on Monday.
	The Government, and most recently the noble Lord, Lord Carter, have said that in March we were irresponsible to hold up the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not accept that for a minute. On the contrary, I think we have been entirely vindicated by what has been said in the inquiry reports, especially that from the Royal Society. A similar report came out from the Royal Society of Edinburgh. It said that recent progress in research and development,
	"powerfully supports the case for emergency protective vaccination without subsequent slaughter, except for infected animals",
	and recommended that,
	"emergency barrier or ring vaccination as an adjunct to slaughter of clinical cases, as this would lead to a considerable reduction in the number of animals requiring to be slaughtered".
	On scrapie, I said at Second Reading that the then president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons had pointed out that in this part of the Bill,
	"many unsupported scientific judgements are made".—[Official Report, 14/1/02; col. 900.]
	We also learnt that its provisions might result in the elimination of many old-established and possibly genetically valuable sheep breeds such as, for example, Herdwicks. Many of these breeds suffered severely during the foot and mouth epidemic. Herdwicks, for example, lost one-third of their number, mostly young animals. Now to wipe out those breeds on the basis of uncertain and disputed science would surely be indefensible.
	Many sheep breeders support the objectives of the Government's national scrapie plan and I know that DEFRA has been trying to find ways to overcome the difficulties. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who set up last year the National Consultative Council on Farm Animal Genetic Resources. DEFRA has also agreed to carry out the rare breed genotyping survey, sampling for which, I understand, is now half complete and should be fully completed by December.
	But the main concern is that the Government are trying to push ahead too fast. Ways may be found to eliminate susceptible animals from herds without affecting the status of the breeds themselves. But that needs time. I am not alone in having serious doubts about what the Government seek to do in Part 2 of the Bill. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons advised me to consult the Sheep Veterinary Society, which is a division of the British Veterinary Association. That I did. It kindly passed on to me comments from members of the society who are experts in this field. The Government should consider carefully what they say. I shall give some examples. First:
	"The TSE part of the Animal Health Bill is . . . very draconian. There is no provision to use an R5 ram on say R1 ewes to protect rare or superior phenotype. It also presupposes that BSE is in the national flock. Far better to use the suggested approach of the Royal Society report and have a proper debate on the issues". Secondly:
	"There are too many scientific uncertainties to justify such draconian measures, particularly the question of whether BSE is, or ever was, in the UK sheep flock".
	Thirdly:
	"In particular, I think the most important thing to question in the Bill is the use of the term 'TSE susceptible' rather than 'affected' or even 'exposed'. By implication, the Bill would allow slaughter of any animal of a species in which a TSE had ever been detected".
	Fourthly:
	"Why are they trying again to introduce this part of the Animal Health Bill when statutory instrument 843 appears to cover all the necessary controls (and more)".
	Three of the experts produced a list of questions which they considered should be answered before the scrapie part of the Bill goes forward. There are 20 questions. I shall not read them all out. I have put a copy of the full list in the Library of the House. To give your Lordships their flavour, I shall quote one or two examples. They are:
	"Why the need for such extreme measures to deal with a disease (Scrapie) which is not known to be a public health risk and which has been recorded for hundreds of years?
	By selecting so strongly for one trait and culling animals with other genotypes, to what other potential disease epidemics may we be predisposing the national sheep flock?
	Is it welfare friendly to select strongly for one trait whilst potentially selecting against others including ability to survive in harsh conditions, mothering ability, resistance to other diseases e.g. foot rot?
	"If large numbers of the national sheep flock are culled out and breeding lines lost how will genetic diversity remain?
	"What about minority breeds or lines specifically adapted to a particular environment/location?"
	What does seem most important is to allow breeders reasonable time to set up breeding programmes to build up scrapie resistance in their herds.
	I have read carefully the reports of the National Audit Office and the Royal Society. I have had time only to read quickly and selectively the Lessons to be Learned report, which I received yesterday. Although couched in polite terms, it is a devastating indictment of a government department and its whole manner of proceeding. The penultimate paragraph of Dr Anderson's foreword states:
	"Within MAFF and now DEFRA, I detected a culture predisposed to decision-making by committee, with an associated fear of personal risk-taking. Such a climate does not encourage creative initiative. It inhibits adaptive behaviour and organisational learning, which, over time, lowers the quality of decisions taken. It seems to me that a reappraisal of prevailing attitudes and behaviours within the Department would be beneficial".
	If the department were a business, the chief executive officer would by now have been dismissed. In my view, it would be sensible to bring in a new permanent secretary with a remit to reorganise the way DEFRA does its work, as was done when a new Minister took over the Department for Transport.
	On legislation, the Anderson report states that the powers available under the Animal Health Act 1981 should be re-examined, possibly in the context of a wider review of animal health legislation, to remove any ambiguity about the legal basis for future disease control strategies. That seems a much more sensible course than persisting with the existing, now largely outdated Bill.
	What has puzzled me most during the past seven months is the Government's apparent refusal to pay any attention to the many criticisms made of their Bill in this House on 14th January and 26th March and by many important bodies in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talks every now and then of bringing back the Bill, although it must be clear to everyone that it is now wholly inappropriate.
	On scrapie, just as much as on disease eradication measures, we need first to ensure that we obtain the right answers to the problems. Then, and only then, can we consider the need for legislation. I cannot understand why the Government think it desirable to rush ahead now, immediately before the recess, with consideration in Committee of a Bill that, in its present form, is clearly doomed. Their attitude appears to be, "Let us show this wretched Cross-Bencher that we are not to be put off by his tiresome initiative, and never mind the sheep". Surely, it would be far better for the whole Bill, including Part 2 on scrapie, to be carefully considered doing the recess and for us to meet in the autumn to consider what I hope will be a new and far more sensible Bill.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I agree entirely with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said. The Animal Health Bill has few friends in this House or outside. At Second Reading on 14th January, 25 noble Lords spoke in the debate, 23 of them against the Bill. On 26th March, your Lordships voted for the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to suspend the Bill until such time as the Government had received, published and, I emphasise, considered the results of the inquiries that they had commissioned. The operative word is "considered". The National Audit Office report was published in late June, and the Royal Society report on 16th July, a mere nine days ago. Meanwhile, the Royal Society in Edinburgh published a comprehensive report on 15th July, and this Monday—only two or three days ago—the Lessons to be Learned report was published.
	The four reports, all recently published, run to a total of more than 500 pages. Each report makes recommendations. The Lessons to be Learned inquiry alone makes 81 recommendations. It is simply not credible that the Government have been able to consider all of the recommendations from all four reports in the short time since publication. Therefore, reintroducing the Animal Health Bill at this stage goes completely against both the letter and spirit of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, which was accepted by your Lordships' House in March.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was absolutely right on Monday during our debate on the Statement. What he said is well worth repeating. He said:
	"how does the Minister consider that the Bill can possibly proceed until we have had a debate on these reports, and he has brought forward either a re-drafted Bill or amendments to it so as to bring it in line with the recommendations that the Government accept? If we do not follow that route, the entire postponement of the Bill's passage until such reports were made will have been a waste of time and a farce".—[Official Report, 22/7/02; cols. 36-37.]
	This the wrong Bill at the wrong time. As the noble Lord. Lord Moran, said, the Government should in the coming months learn the lessons of the various published reports, digest the criticisms and return with a Bill that is acceptable to this House and the many people outside whom it will affect.
	I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, replies, he will give some answers and assurances so that we will not have to divide the House on the matter.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am concerned that the procedure being adopted will bring the House into total chaos. I am today concerned not with technical details or the overall merit of the Animal Health Bill, but with procedure—in particular, the idea that the Bill's foot and mouth disease provisions shall proceed on the first and second days after we return from the recess.
	On Monday, during the Statement, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
	"Clearly, the reports may have implications for the Animal Health Bill . . . There may be other, wider implications for animal health legislation that may have to be dealt with more broadly".—[Official Report, 22/7/02; col. 34.]
	He also said, at col, 37:
	"we shall need to consider what is in these reports that may require amendment to the proposed Animal Health Bill".
	Whether or not the House was right to pass the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is irrelevant. We are now where we are. Clearly, the intent and decision of the House was that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the Government had absorbed the reports and decided what to do about them.
	As even the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, recognised, it will be appropriate to amend the Bill to some extent to take account of the reports. The Government will also have to consider how to deal with the reports more broadly. But under the presently suggested procedure, we shall arrive back here on our first sitting day in October and perhaps be faced with a raft of government amendments—perhaps not, because they may not have been drafted—but with no idea what is the overall government strategy to deal either with the reports generally or with the Bill in the light of those reports.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will tell us—and I do not dispute this—that parts of the Bill are needed urgently. But even those parts will inevitably need to be amended because they were conceived in the context of a slaughter policy, not a vaccination policy, and, above, all not a policy of "vaccination to live".
	Other parts of the Bill are not urgent: for example, the part that deals with what is to me—I declare an interest as a farmer—the unattractive concept that any farmer who has broken the rules is automatically liable to have his compensation confiscated. That is plainly not urgently required to deal with an emergency—it may or may not be a good idea.
	I shall spell out to the Minister what he needs to do stage by stage. On the first day on which we sit to discuss the Bill, instead of progressing with consideration in Committee he should make a Statement on how he will deal with the overall recommendations in the reports and table the amendments that the Government need to those parts of the Bill with which they wish to proceed early. He can then table or have tabled the amendments that the Government need to the parts of the Bill with which they wish to proceed at this stage. I pause, so that the Minister can hear what I say, rather than the words of his Chief Whip.
	The Minister should make a Statement on how he intends to go forward, table some amendments and then move the amendments en bloc, so that they can be made. The Bill can then be recommitted, so that those who are concerned with it can table amendments relevant to the Bill as it will stand in the light of the Government's new policy. We can then drop the amendments relating to issues that have been solved, and we can ignore the parts of the Bill that the Government can safely afford to put away until the later day when, as the Minister said, we shall need to return to the matter. A week later, we can approach the new Bill or the new government strategy in the light of a clear explanation and in the light of any relevant amendments; otherwise, there will be total chaos.
	I am certain that, regardless of whether we proceed with the Committee stage today, the Minister will find a strong body of opinion against continuing with the Committee stage on the first day after the Recess, if he does not follow the course of action that I have suggested.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said about how we should deal with the Bill. Part 2 should be the content of a separate Bill for scrapie, with appropriate wording. In part, the problem is that chunks of Part 1, which applies in particular to foot and mouth disease, are applied to Part 2, where they are inappropriate. That will be raised in our debate, if we have one today. Part 2 ought to make sense in the context of scrapie, not necessarily foot and mouth disease. There is also the question of vaccination, which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, just mentioned.
	The House voted on 18th July to continue with Part 2 of the Bill, as it is, in theory, distinct from Part 1. The three reports that were requested have been published. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was right to ask us in March to vote on whether it was right to consider the Bill until the reports were published. We must, of course, ask whether the reports have been considered properly; that is an open question. Most of the points made in the reports refer to Part 1, not Part 2.
	We must also recognise that the sheep farming industry, particularly the pedigree breeders, want to get on and make a start on eradicating scrapie from the United Kingdom. The Government may be hung on the problem of finding enough legislative time to consider all the matters. That is probably one of several reasons why they want to expedite consideration of the Bill. I would still prefer to see another Bill dealing with scrapie as a separate issue with the appropriate clauses and amendments. However, given that we voted on the matter earlier in July, it looks as though we shall have to go on and amend Part 2 so radically that it will not look much as it does at the moment. That may not be a satisfactory state of affairs, but it is what the House has decided to do.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned me in his speech. I must repeat the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth: the House has already accepted the order of consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was unable to be present. The House agreed to split the Bill between the part relating to scrapie, which we will do today, and the rest, which we will consider after the Recess.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has already admitted that he is opposed to the Bill, but he has not been consistent. As he admitted, he should have put down a Motion at Second Reading that the Bill be read in six months' time. We would have had a vote and, if the noble Lord had been successful, he would have killed the Bill. He did not do that, so we had the business of the vote earlier in the year, followed by an unusual debate on the order of consideration, and another debate today.
	I still think that the vote earlier in the year to stop the Bill was irresponsible. In this House, in which the Government are in a minority, there is a long-standing convention that the Government of the day are entitled to have their business considered. If the House does not like that business, there are all sorts of ways in which it can amend or vote down a Bill. I shall repeat the point that I made before. If there is an outbreak of foot and mouth disease between today and the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent, those who supported the vote in the spring—who may vote again today to hold up the Bill—would bear a heavy responsibility.
	There are many technical points about the scrapie provisions relating to breeds, timescale and lots of other things. They are exactly the sort of points that we ought to discuss in Committee and at later stages. the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that he had a list of questions. Well, we should explore those problems in Committee and try to resolve them. I am sure that the Minister will discuss them between Committee and Report. If the House is not satisfied, it knows what to do.
	The noble Lord said that the Sheep Veterinary Society had said that there was no evidence of BSE in sheep. I was Opposition spokesman on agriculture for 10 years, and I lived with the whole BSE saga. I remember all the statements from the Dispatch Box that there was no connection between BSE and CJD.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. There is still no proven connection between BSE and CJD or between scrapie and BSE or CJD.

Lord Carter: My Lords, there is no proof; the noble Countess is right. However, there is something called the precautionary principle.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again. If there is something called the precautionary principle, why did neither Government take organophosphates off the shelf when they were making so many people sick?

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Countess is prepared to take the risk that there may be BSE in sheep. If, because of her theory, we take no action, she will bear a heavy responsibility, as the previous Government bear a heavy responsibility for what happened with BSE because it was eventually proved that there was a connection. There was enough proof at least to justify introducing the measures that that Government had to take. With all its horrors, foot and mouth disease also led to substantial economic loss. If there is a connection between BSE and nvCJD, over a hundred of our people will have died a horrible death because of it.
	There is also the question of the timescale for the scrapie plan. I have here a letter from the National Sheep Association, of which, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is president. The letter says:
	" . . . NSA has put its weight behind the initiatives of Government to work constructively to develop a population of resistant stock as quickly as possible within the limitations of breeding set by nature but using all the breeding technology and know-how which is appropriate and affordable".
	The last sentence of the letter reads as follows:
	"Our recommendation therefore is that any legislation currently being put in place should reflect this aspect"—
	timescale—
	"as the best option to move the industry forward in a constructive way".
	I believe that there is an opposition amendment dealing with timescale and Royal Assent for the scrapie part of the Bill. That is exactly the sort of thing that we deal with in Committee. If the House is not satisfied, it can deal with the matter on Report.
	I urge the House to think carefully about the procedure that we are adopting. I know that some noble Lords do not like the Bill and that, with some, the Bill is extremely unpopular. However, all governments bring unpopular Bills to the House of Lords. If the House, in which the Government are in a minority, uses the procedure endlessly to hold up Bills, we would be playing with fire, with the powers of the House and, indeed, with the future of the House of Lords.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord has threatened us in various ways. He has threatened us about the powers of the House; he has threatened us that if we hold up the Bill and there is an outbreak of foot and mouth disease between now and whenever the Bill comes into force, that will be our fault.
	With the House of Commons report, we now have four reports that show very clearly that government incompetence, not the actions of Members of the House of Lords, caused many of the problems with foot and mouth disease. On the whole, Members of the House of Lords are extremely responsible. They want to see good law on the statute book. With the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, we have repeatedly raised our objections, as we are perfectly entitled to, and in doing so have been in the majority, both in terms of number of speakers and votes that have taken place. Do not let the former Chief Whip threaten us any more. We are not here to be threatened. Most of us are independent, even when we belong to parties, and we should be allowed to think for ourselves.
	Our concerns are that we are dealing with inadequate science. I think back to Galileo and I think back to the vitamin C saga, which I raised when we debated TSE. I also think of the medical diagnoses that have been made over the past century for neuro-degenerative diseases, which, in the case of humans, have all been said to have psychological origins, except for CJD; that cannot be in people's minds. Multiple sclerosis and similar illnesses have all been classified as idle men's diseases or in the mind.
	No one seems to be considering any hypothesis other than the meat and bonemeal hypothesis. There are many of them around. I know that Alan Ebringer has received some money, but we need more proof about the causation. If one considers reported scrapie cases, Oxfordshire, Cumbria, the Shetlands, and either Powys or Dyfed in Wales, have a very high incidence of reporting. If scrapie is such an infectious disease—I know that it is a slow infection—why is it not evenly spread over the country when sheep are evenly spread over the country? We have heard that about the markets.
	That is why we are not happy with this section of the Bill, which I again ask the Minister to reconsider very carefully. He has the power that he needs in the existing Animal Health Bill and in the recent TSE regulations, to which I objected. He does not need any further power at the moment. Let us take time to get proper legislation on to the statute book instead of this hotchpotch of inadequate law.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the words of the noble Countess in relation to scrapie. He has had longer than any of us in this House to consider the three reports and the Scottish report into the foot and mouth outbreak, and he will be well aware that the essential recommendations are that there should be an adequate strategy for large outbreaks of disease and that lessons should be learnt from earlier outbreaks. Those are the two errors that appear to have compounded what happened in the recent case.
	Unless the Minister brings together those reports and the chairmen of the committees who made them in order to produce a proper strategy, how can we begin to have legislation to give effect to that strategy? Regardless of what happens today in relation to the Committee stage, I ask him to ensure that that takes place during the summer so that by October there will be in place a strategy for dealing with any defects in the legislation. It seems that we are proceeding entirely in the wrong order. So far as I am aware, we still have no adequate strategy. I am afraid that if we proceed with a Bill in this form, much of the country will think that once again history is repeating itself and that lessons are not being learnt.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: This debate is about scrapie, a disease that has been with us for 200 years or more. It is a nasty disease of sheep. It is not good for their welfare. On the other hand, sheep breeders and flock owners have made extraordinarily good progress in controlling it and eradicating it from their flocks. There is no doubt that the proposal in this Bill will hasten that eradication.
	However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that more thought needs to be given to the provisions of this section of the Bill. There certainly is a question over whether BSE is present in sheep. With more work done at the neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh, we may be able to determine whether that is so and whether the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, are justified.
	I suggest that we are running on what is known as the principle of unripe time. We need to sit back for a month or two during the Summer Recess to reconsider this part of the Bill or a new Bill, whichever is necessary. Scrapie needs to be controlled. I am sure that the flock owners of this country would welcome this Bill and the eradication of scrapie, which would help our export trade and our meat trade. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that this is not the right time to move forward. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will take note of the concerns of various people about the uncertainties and demonic aspects of scrapie and will return in a few months' time, perhaps with some research that may have been initiated at the neuropathogenesis unit, to put the Bill in a much clearer and more effective form than it is at present.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, have read the reports. One thing that emerges clearly is the need for quick, decisive action. If there is provision for that in this Bill, we should go ahead with it.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in that case, we should kill all the animals. We would then have no problem.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I do not know how we can resolve this debate, instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, but I hope that when deciding individually how to react, your Lordships will not be taken in by the extraordinarily strange argument that, because on 18th July we agreed to an instruction as to how the Bill should be dealt with, it is not appropriate for us to oppose going into Committee. In my view, that is a totally spurious argument.
	It is right that several days before one considers a Bill in Committee, one knows how that Bill will be taken over the days on which it is debated. It is quite right that a formal Motion should be tabled to tell Members of the House in what order the clauses and schedules will be discussed, so that your Lordships can prepare for the debates that follow. The decision as to whether your Lordships' House goes into Committee should be taken on the day. In my view, we are dealing with the matter in the proper way. It is a totally spurious argument that we should not discuss whether to consider the Bill now in Committee because we passed an instruction some days ago. In deciding how to proceed, I hope that your Lordships will not consider that argument at all.

Lord May of Oxford: As president of the Royal Society, I formed the 15-person committee that produced the Royal Society report. Although I had nothing more to do with it, I believe that it is one among many excellent reports.
	The remarks of the former Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggest that our discussion is entirely coloured by party politics. That is not how I judge it. I have heard a variety of voices pleading that we try to absorb wide-ranging discussions, embracing people in the countryside and in the world of science. We have deliberately considered those views. At least one report is not a report of lessons learnt and scientific questions put forward for the future to sit on a shelf and be forgotten, as was the Northumberland report, until too late; it recommends a debate in Parliament, various structural features and annual or triennial reviews to be embedded in the relevant departments.
	All that seems to me, in my naivety, to be relevant to a soundly designed Bill. I do not see our producing that unless we follow a slightly more leisurely course.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, having listened to the contributions from around the House, the Minister will feel challenged in responding to the many comments made, in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord May, for which I am grateful.
	While not picking on any noble Lord, I point out that the former Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said previously that the National Sheep Association wishes to go ahead and eradicate scrapie from the flock. Indeed, it does; I have no difficulty with that argument. However, it clearly states that it should be done within a time-span. For that reason, I have tabled an additional amendment.
	That is not the only argument. I quote from a copy of a letter, also sent to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, from the National Sheep Association. It is dated 24th July. I should like to read all of it but I believe that that would push your Lordships' patience beyond belief and I shall not do so. However, the extract I have selected states:
	"We do not have sufficient robust, up-to-date data on the population size of various breeds to make an accurate assessment of the ability of the industry as a whole to adopt more radical breeding strategies. However, given a number of assumptions that we believe accurately reflect industry structure and good practice, we predict"—

Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I believe that she is quoting from a letter from the University of Wales, not from the NSA letter.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry, I was indeed quoting from a letter which accompanied the letter from the National Sheep Association and I should record that in Hansard. I apologise to your Lordships. The letter comes from the Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales, and supports what is said by the National Sheep Association.
	The institute predicts that,
	"even the most radical breeding plan would be unable to deliver a national flock that was 100% ARR carrying (i.e. resistant to scrapie) in much less than 10 years. The consequences of such radical breeding policies on the survival of some breeds and the financial viability on some farming businesses could be severe".
	The noble Lord is right. I was mistaken in trying to get the papers together so as to make sense.
	I spoke again to John Thorley, the chairman of the NSA. He clearly accepts that the association wants to see scrapie bred out. However, he realises that time has been lost. One of the problems is that as a result of last year's foot and mouth outbreak, some of the plans for the breeding programme have been delayed. At paragraph 7 of his letter, he states:
	"To sum up, we would estimate that the NSP [national sheep plan] is at a stage in development which we would like to have seen some three years ago. The problems associated with foot and mouth having removed important commercial traits also needs to be taken into consideration at this juncture. To take the industry forward in a sensible way we would contend that a period of four breeding seasons needs to elapse before consideration is given to introduce rules which entail restricting the use of breeding stock according to their resistance rating".
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will agree that the University of Wales and the National Sheep Association are highly respected by the industry.
	I shall not repeat all the comments made by other noble Lords, but last week in discussing the sequence in which we would debate the Bill we agreed that we would first take the section relating to scrapie. That proposal was put before us. It was not put before us that we should take it today, but, for the benefit of noble Lords who were not present, the agreement was that we would take the scrapie part of the Bill first, rather than as originally proposed. Those are two important issues of which Members who were not here should be aware?
	Secondly, being critical, and I hope supportive, the scrapie part of the Bill is not the urgent part in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested the Government did not have to hand the information they required. They do not need the scrapie part as an urgent measure. That also adds to the weight of argument to which other noble Lords have referred outside the Chamber. Some have suggested outside the Chamber that they feel we are rushing the Bill through and they would like to give the NSA a chance to get to grips with what it wants to see happen.
	In addition, one or two people say that more thought needs to be given. Like the noble Lord, Lord May, I read the report to which he referred. It gave a light to the future. None of us wants to see what happened last year, with the outbreak of foot and mouth and thousands of animals being killed. However, if we rush through legislation, we are likely to condemn many sheep to death. And for the benefit of noble Lords who do not understand the sheep business too well, I should add that many of those sheep have good genome types which we need to preserve for cross-breeding purposes. We run the risk of killing them because they are more susceptible to scrapie.
	I do not believe that I need to speak at greater length. It is a judgment for this House to make. It is not a party political judgment; it is one for Members all around the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made an imposing speech. She well knows sheep breeding and is involved in it; I am not. There are good reasons why we should think again and why we should have a chance to come back to the legislation.
	When discussing the questions whether we should move the debates forward or whether there is too much rush, I have argued that following the three valuable reports we have received this summer following the foot and mouth outbreak, the Government—let alone we in opposition and Members around the House—will want to see improvements made to the Bill. Vaccination has been highlighted. There are good reasons why we should think again. If I were being practical and I were the Government, I believe that the passage of the Bill would be quicker if we were given time to think about it and to come back. If we try to push the legislation through, the Government will say to us, "Oh, my goodness, we have looked again and we have to change the Bill yet again". That seems nonsensical.
	I take up another point that has been raised. We are likely to have only today to debate this part of the Bill. When we spoke earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rightly said that he thought two days would be adequate for discussions on the scrapie part. But it does not look as though we shall get even two days on the scrapie part, which is a worry. More worrying for all noble Lords is the fact that we all work hard and are willing to do what we can. But the hard rub is that when we return on 7th October we shall have had no chance to debate the recommendations of the reports. When tabling amendments, noble Lords will not know the Government's response. I suggest that that leaves us in a mess.
	I urge the Government to give us the opportunity to consider those reports. We realise that there are practical problems. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, in many cases the science is not proved. New vaccines are being developed all the while. That is hugely encouraging. How much better to have a vaccination than to have to slaughter animals. But at the end of the day the decision is for noble Lords.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in every sense of the word, this has been an extraordinary debate. What is before your Lordships is a simple Motion to move into Committee on those parts of the Bill which the House decided last week we would take first and to move into Committee on the day decided in the normal way by the usual channels.
	Almost all of the earlier speeches did not relate to the business today. Although it is quite rare, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is correct that at any time the Motion to move into Committee can be challenged, debated and negatived if the House so wishes. I have to say that if the House continues to have such wide-ranging debates at four-monthly intervals on the simple Motion to move into Committee, we shall rapidly lose the ability to deal with business in this House in a sensible way.
	I have no intention of replying to every point because, frankly, I do not think that it is in order for me to do so. What is before us, and is in order for me to reply to, is the Motion that the House move into Committee on those parts of the Bill referred to on the Marshalled List to which a significant number of amendments have been tabled by government and noble Lords.
	The points dealing with the implications of the reports, relating back to the Motion passed in March, are good but they are not relevant to the Motion. We are not debating any part of the Bill which has implications arising from those reports. We have, therefore, two and a half months to consider the implications of those reports before we return to the matter in October.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister knows that I raised the issue last week. References from those reports have implications.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, no recommendations from those reports, apart from informational ones, relate to any legislative measures in relation to scrapie or TSEs. The recommendations in the report which might be relevant to the Bill relate to the FMD part of the Bill, the contiguous cull and the pre-emptive cull vaccination. Your Lordships will have had far longer than is normal to deal with government papers and reports before we consider their implications—two and a half months.
	Many of the points raised are good. Many will no doubt be debated at some length in October. But they are not relevant to the decision today. Many of the points regarding scrapie may reflect wide-ranging views in this House and outside. Those are quite important points to be raised in Committee and perhaps returned to on Report and at Third Reading. But they are not relevant to the decision whether we move into Committee today.
	Those who oppose the Motion are in fact denying your Lordships the ability to debate those points. That seems an extraordinary move by those who think that we should have a wider debate on the implications of animal health legislation.
	I do not think that I need say more. If noble Lords wish to oppose the Motion, no doubt they will. If they do so and are successful, I think that it is a sad day for the House. The implications of doing so have to be considered seriously. Above all, I think that the good will of the Government in accepting both the letter and—I would argue—the spirit of the Motion in March will have been ignored. On closer examination, I do not believe that what we ask today could possibly be said to prejudice the implications of the Motion passed in March.
	The clauses to be debated today deal with scrapie. There are no substantive implications from the reports. We can debate the implications of the reports in October. Let us debate the part of the report relating to scrapie during what remains of today. I commend the Motion.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he apply himself more closely to the views expressed from all sides of the House, including the Cross- Benches? The only party not to support the consideration that this might be the wrong time to go into Committee is the Liberal Democrats. But has the Minister noted that on the second page of the Marshalled List, the noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Greaves, have given notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill? They intimate on the Marshalled List that they do not want any of the scrapie legislation to go through. That indicates that they would be in sympathy with not proceeding with debate on it today: they want the clause to be dropped.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord. Far be it from me to defend noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, but they are behaving in the way that this House normally behaves—and which those who want to stop the House moving into Committee argue against.
	Those noble Lords have different opinions from the Government on this part of the Bill. I have no doubt that they and others have different opinions from us on other parts of the Bill. That is what Committee stage in this House is for. The suggestion is that we should be prevented from doing what is normal: scrutinising a Bill in Committee. That is to me an extraordinary assertion. I cannot think that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, really believes that that should be so.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he has not referred to how we shall deal with the remainder of the Bill in October. I am sure he is technically right. Whether he was wise to do as he has, I do not know.
	Will the Minister undertake to write to noble Lords who are concerned well before we return in October stating how he intends to go ahead with the Bill in the light of the points that I and other noble Lords have made?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I undertake to indicate in writing—it will probably now be over the Recess—to those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate which amendments, if any, the Government intend to put forward in Committee in the autumn; and whether there are procedural implications of so doing.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, do I understand from the Minister's undertaking that he will give the Government's view on the reports before we return to debate the issue?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I said that I would give the Government's consideration of what changes to the Bill the Government wish to propose in the light of those reports. The full implication of the reports is much wider than the Bill. Let me make it clear that I am not undertaking to have given overall consideration to those very detailed reports. But I give an undertaking to let know Lords know how the Government intend to deal with those parts of the reports which relate to the Bill. I believe that we shall see that the implications are to accelerate and consolidate the Bill, but I do not argue that today.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
	Clause 5 [Scrapie]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 3, line 10, leave out "transmissible spongiform encephalopathies" and insert "scrapie"

Baroness Byford: We now have the pleasure of starting our debates on the Bill. Noble Lords will note that I have tabled 10 amendments together on the groupings list. Although it is not the fault of the Government, I would have liked to have broken down the amendments into smaller groups. However, because they all relate to the TSE regulations, I decided that they should be taken together. Perhaps I should say at the outset that, in particular with regard to Amendment No. 2, I hope that we shall have a more detailed discussion about the difference between the words "susceptible" and "suspect". The issue is extremely important.
	I shall move Amendment No. 1 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2 to 10. Part 2 of the Bill deals with scrapie. Our discussions on dealing with the Bill before the Summer Recess turned entirely on that part. The caveats I have expressed with regard to the Anderson and Royal Society reports have been met with repeated assurances that Part 2 deals only with scrapie and, as such, is not affected by either of them. Indeed, the Minister has confirmed that this afternoon.
	I understand that scrapie is a form of TSE. I further understand that tests are being undertaken to try to isolate OSE, the form of BSE in sheep, which in turn is another form of TSE. For all I know, there may be yet other forms of TSE waiting to be discovered. All that is irrelevant to a part purporting to deal solely with scrapie. I am concerned that the wording has been used deliberately to leave a door open in legal terms for a future circumstances of which we are yet unaware. I am even more concerned that the wording may have no particular purpose, but is in place simply because it might be used at some point in the future to create a situation of which we might not approve. In the event of any further discoveries relating to TSE, we think it only right that the Government should come back to Parliament to discuss those developments.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 2. The Official Journal of the European Communities dated 31st March 2001 refers to Regulation 999/2001 of 22nd May. It lays down the rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain TSEs. The preamble at paragraph 12 refers to the,
	"suspected presence of any TSE",
	and to the "suspect" animal. In Article 3 of Chapter 1, under the title "Definitions" reference is made in sub-paragraph (h) to,
	"animals suspected of being infected by a TSE".
	Article 12 is headed,
	"Measures with respect to suspect animals".
	Annex 3 lays down the minimum requirements for monitoring scrapie in ovine and caprine animals. Three selection criteria are listed under the general heading:
	"animals displaying clinical signs compatible with scrapie".
	Perhaps I may translate that into human terms. I have had two heart attacks which makes me, I believe, susceptible to them. I sincerely hope that I am not displaying at this moment any clinical signs compatible with a heart attack. I am not a heart attack suspect. Certain families have appalling and heart-wrenching histories of susceptibility to specific diseases. Tests prove that family members are much more than ordinarily susceptible, yet some still do not succumb to the disease in question.
	With regard to Amendment No. 3, I have mentioned already the distinction to be made between the terms "susceptible" and "suspect". The Committee will appreciate the depth of my dismay at the notion that anyone would slaughter an animal simply because it is susceptible to a disease which, at present, is only a theoretical possibility, not even a probability.
	After the excessive cull of so many animals during the foot and mouth outbreak, surely no one would wish to legislate for the on-farm slaughter of yet more animals. Clause 4(2)(j) of the TSE regulations allows for the service of notice in connection with slaughter, which should be confined to the slaughterhouse. There is no need for an inspector to slaughter on farm premises.
	Turning to Amendment No. 4, farms tend to be places which attract families. It may have something to do with the country air or the relative isolation, but families and farms go together. Indeed, the Government are pushing farmers to diversify and thus to encourage this. Modern families are encouraged to use computers, both at home and at school. Indeed, some local education authorities have a system of lending computers to pupils who do not have a suitable model available at home.
	Some parents buy a computer for each child as part of their education, or to help them keep up with their work. Surely, therefore, it is not necessary for inspectors to interfere with computers on farm premises that have nothing to do with the business in hand, in particular after the treatment meted out to some farmers during the foot and mouth outbreak.
	Many farming families rely on the money brought in by the farmer's wife in her "day job". Sometimes these redoubtable ladies work from home using their employers' computers, and sometimes they will use the farm computer. It is wrong to confer on state veterinary inspectors powers to access and check the operation of a machine which may contain commercially sensitive information. Or do all inspectors sign the Official Secrets Act? The Minister will recall that during the foot and mouth outbreak, many farmers were required to do so.
	I move on to Amendments Nos. 5 to 10. At this point I should apologise to the Minister and the Committee. I may have gone beyond the elements dealing with scrapie, owing to a misunderstanding on my part, and moved on to dealing with animal feedstuffs, which may not be appropriate to our discussions today.
	We have tabled the amendments to probe the situation with regard to Part 3 of the TSE regulations. Will the Minister explain how Regulations 11 to 29 sit with regard to our own laws covering the production and use of mammalian meat and bone meal? The Explanatory Note refers only to the European regulations, while Part I of Schedule 9 does not state specifically that they, together with the savings, encompass the whole of the then existing legislation.
	Once more, I apologise if I have moved further ahead than I should have done. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: The Minister already knows of my objections to the TSE regulations because I made my position very clear a couple of months ago. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. First, however, I should declare my interests as the wife of a small farmer and as a specialist cheese maker rather than as a specialist "goats disease maker".
	We have gone over and over the business of distinguishing between a susceptible animal and an animal that is suspected of having a disease. I am still not clear why the Minister seeks to override the primary legislation—that is, the Animal Health Act 1981—and European legislation, all of which indicates that an animal must either be sick or must have been in contact with an animal suffering from an infectious disease and thus is likely to become sick itself.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made it very clear that she is susceptible to heart disease but that she is not suspected of having heart disease. We really need some clarification from the Minister on this point. I support the noble Baroness as regards the other amendments that she has tabled under this grouping.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said in relation to the description that clearly ought to relate to the word "scrapie". It is far clearer; indeed, the farming community knows precisely what is meant by "scrapie". In the interests of clarity, it is well worth supporting the need for changing the wording.
	I agree with the remarks just made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about the use of the word "suspect" instead of "susceptibility". I am sure that that is the correct way to proceed. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, quoted and prayed in aid EU legislation, which refers to suspect cases.
	I should like to refer to a few of the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment No. 5. During the foot and mouth outbreak, it was certainly my impression that one of the Minister's right honourable friends in the other place said that meat and bonemeal would be banned in relation to the feeding of certain types of livestock, especially meat and bonemeal that originated from sheep. Can the noble Lord give the Committee a clear statement as regards the feeding of meat and bonemeal to ruminant animals?
	Certain points have been made about computers and the information they provide, which does not actually relate to livestock matters and other farming issues. Surely it must be correct that none of that other information should be removed, especially now that there is terrific diversification of activities on farms through necessity as a means of earning income other than through farming. At present, many farms earn more than 50 per cent of their income from other sources and use information technology a good deal in order to do so. I do not propose to make a "meal" of all these amendments. I merely wished to make those points.

The Earl of Erroll: On the issue of the use of the word "susceptible" or "suspect", I notice that new Section 36A to the 1981 Act, as set out under Schedule 2 to the Bill, refers to the power of the Minister to "specify sheep genotypes", and says:
	"The Minister may by order specify sheep genotypes which, in his opinion, are more susceptible than other sheep genotypes".
	That suggests to me that it is a matter of degree and that, therefore, all sheep are susceptible but that some are more susceptible than others. If all sheep are susceptible, they must all be dealt with under whatever provision applies—which I gather probably means slaughtering the lot.
	It seems to me that the use of English is rather like my experience with my English teacher, who hated my saying "nearly unique" or "almost unique". Because it is a matter of degree and because there can be nothing that is not to some degree susceptible under certain conditions, I suspect that you cannot possibly use the word in a case like this where we are dealing with legal language.
	Being an IT man, I should like to make a quick comment on the removal of computers. I have not read the provision in this respect, but it is very dangerous to remove people's computers along with the data. Nowadays one is reliant on e-mails and on the Internet for marketing data, and so on. It is very easy to take an image of a disk drive and remove the data on the computer, and thereby leave the user with the computer and the other information. There are programmes like Drive Image that will do that quite simply and easily. I do not see why modern technology cannot be used to solve the problem.

Lord Whitty: Not for the first time this afternoon I rather wish that this Chamber had slightly tighter rules of order. I believe that the amendments that have been tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, relate to a matter that is not before the Committee. The amendments relate to the TSE regulations, which have been passed by this place subject to an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. That amendment may lead to our producing further statutory instruments, but the matter is not before the Committee today.
	Those regulations, which are not before the Committee, have two purposes. It is not as if there is overlap between the two arrangements. First, the TSE regulations tackle the actual occurrence of a disease in individual animals—a "suspect" animal in that sense—and, secondly, they provide for a major, active surveillance programme in line with our EU obligations in order to generate important epidemiological information on the disease. That entails dealing with "susceptible" animals. But those two processes are contained within the TSE regulations; they are not in the part of the Bill now before us.
	This part of the Bill is about genotype in sheep, and about developing resistance—

The Countess of Mar: Perhaps I may make the point that neither the Animal Health Act 1981 nor the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 are before the Committee this afternoon, yet this Bill contains references to both Acts. There is no reason why we should not amend other legislation through this Bill.

Lord Whitty: Yes, but we need to know what we are doing. At present, we do not seem to know what we are doing.
	If we are talking about the TSE regulations, I should remind the Committee that we had a pretty lengthy debate on the subject a week or so ago. Those regulations deal with something different from the objectives of this Bill. The reason that the preceding regulation is referred to is that the means of delivering the Bill's objectives impact, in part, on the pieces of legislation to which the noble Countess referred. In essence, this Bill is an amendment to the Animal Health Act 1981. However, those powers do not deal with the process outlined under the TSE regulations. Therefore, it is not appropriate to deal with amendments that seek to amend those regulations.
	The Bill deals with something quite different: it deals with genotyping sheep and developing resistance to disease, which is not covered in the TSE regulations. There is no reference in those regulations to the national scrapie plan, which is the basis of this part of the Bill—

Lord Lucas: Surely we have a process in this Chamber whereby amendments are approved by the Clerks. Therefore, if an amendment has been accepted by the Clerks, it ought to be dealt with in Committee. I am sure that the former Chief Whip, who is more of an expert on such matters than I am, will contradict me if I am wrong. However, if an amendment has been allowed, surely it should be debated.

Lord Carter: Yes, of course. It is perfectly in order to table an amendment. However, although an amendment can be in order, it can still be completely irrelevant.

Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lord Carter puts it much more diplomatically than I was about to do.
	To pass these amendments, or anything like them, would completely skew this part of the Bill and lead us away from what is a very focused topic; namely, the accelerated delivery of the national scrapie plan. That is the objective of this part of the Bill, and it has the support of the bulk of the industry. There may be differences in detail, or about time-scale, and so on, but the need to eradicate scrapie from the national sheep flock is acknowledged throughout the industry.
	I turn to the surveillance required by the EU regulations, which is dealt with under the TSE regulations. If we were to pass some of the amendments in this group, we would not be complying with those regulations. However, as I said, they are not the focus of this part of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendments in that context.
	As to the amendments in this group relating to feed that the noble Baroness feels might be taking us a little further than is applicable under this part of the Bill, again, these fall under the TSE regulations. Indeed, if we were to alter the latter in this somewhat tangential way, we would also find ourselves in some difficulty as regards being in compliance with the EU regulations. However, I understand that the noble Baroness recognises that fact. I trust that these amendments will not be pursued because they would exceed the Bill's purpose and lead us into other difficulties in terms of transposition of EU regulations.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. Why does he find Amendment No. 1 unacceptable? The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and other Members of the Committee agreed with me. I do not understand what is unacceptable about the amendment.

Lord Whitty: At first sight, I thought that Amendment No. 1 did not quite fall in the same category as the other amendments in this group, in that it was not a direct attempt to alter the implications of the TSE regulations. The noble Baroness explained the rationale in the first two or three sentences that she uttered in this regard. The rationale is to alter the interface between the Bill and the regulations, which would change the nature of those regulations.
	The noble Baroness's other point—on the face of it, the amendment also deals with this point—raised the question whether we should refer to scrapie rather than TSEs throughout the clause. One of the motives for eliminating scrapie is to try to ensure that the unproven—I say that to avoid the need for the noble Countess to intervene—but nevertheless theoretical possibility of BSE being in sheep would be eliminated if we also eliminated scrapie. That deals with a TSE other than scrapie. To confine the provision to scrapie would limit the operation of the legislation.

The Countess of Mar: The Minister cannot have it both ways. We either talk about TSEs when we talk about BSE, CJD and TSE in cats or we talk about scrapie, BSE and CJD. Most of those diseases are animal specific. No one has yet been able to prove, despite trying with all of their might, that sheep get BSE. It would be much better if we were clear and said "scrapie" for sheep, "BSE" for cattle and "CJD" for humans.

The Earl of Erroll: I thought that I was clear about the situation until the Minister spoke. Clause 5 states:
	"Schedule 2 contains provision about transmissible spongiform encephalopathies".
	However, Schedule 2 is entitled "Scrapie" and says nothing about TSEs. I am now confused. Should we amend Schedule 2 so that it refers to TSEs throughout?

Lord Lucas: One difficulty in this regard is that there are quite different patterns of susceptibility for different TSEs. We know reasonably well which genotypes are susceptible to the various strains of scrapie in this country. I do not believe that we yet have a clear picture of which strains are susceptible to BSE and we certainly do not know which strains are susceptible to classic human CJD, chronic wasting disease of deer, kuru or any of the other TSEs about which we know. We are in danger of confusing the problem if we think that we are dealing with TSEs in sheep. We are dealing with the sheep disease of scrapie. We have a reasonable idea of how susceptibility varies according to genotype. For the rest of it, we get many conflicting angles. A genotype that is particularly resistant to scrapie may well be particularly susceptible to some other TSE. We have not done the research. Should we not really be looking at the disease about which we know and deal with that rather than broadening the concept as if we knew much more than we do?

Lord Carter: As I understand it, if Amendment No. 1 were agreed to we would remove the chance in relation to this Bill of examining the genotypes that may be susceptible to BSE. If scientific work shows that there is such a link, we would need another Bill. If that is required in relation to BSE in sheep, the Minister will have to produce an order, which would be debated in this House. Presumably that order would be produced only after consultation with SEAC and the relevant and scientific authorities. We should adopt the precautionary principle in this regard. In relation to the Bill, to remove any chance of working on the theoretical possibility of BSE in sheep, which would have to be done by order anyway and would be subject to debate and approval by both Houses, would be extremely risky. We would need another Bill to deal with that form of TSE in sheep if we restricted the Bill only to scrapie.

Lord Jopling: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised a matter that I had hoped to raise but I felt that it was appropriate to do so when we debated the Question whether Clause 5 stand part. Since the noble Lord has raised that matter now, it is probably appropriate if I say at this point part of what I wanted to say on our clause stand part debate.
	When the Minister winds up, will he tell us whether he thinks that it is wise to confine Clause 5 only to sheep? There are other species in this context—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned deer, but one could also mention llamas; I know a number of people who keep them. Would it not be wise to amend the Bill at a later stage so that it referred to "sheep or similar species of animals"? Would it not be better to deal with that now and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, have to bring in new primary legislation at a later stage? If one was trying to deal in a similar way with other species besides sheep, one could not do so by secondary legislation, as the noble Lord seemed to imply. I may have misunderstood him; we should not worry about that. One could not possibly do that, as I understand it, with secondary legislation because Clause 5 refers to sheep, and to sheep alone.
	Will the Minister consider that point and extend Clause 5 in future to include other species? Many people in this country farm deer commercially. If there were serious extensions of TSEs in the deer herd and it was felt necessary to deal with that, it would be an awful shame to have to go through the whole rigmarole of primary legislation again. Will the Minister open his mind to that possibility and consider tabling amendments at a later stage of our consideration of the Bill?

The Countess of Mar: We appear to be getting into just the sort of muddle that I feared we would get into. My understanding of the provisions on scrapie is that they put into legislation what is currently voluntary; that is, the national scrapie programme. Scrapie, we have to accept, is a nasty disease in sheep. We do not know what the incidence is, although it is not very high: I understand that there are between 200 and 300 reported cases a year in a flock of about 46,000 sheep. If we refer to other TSEs in the Bill we will find ourselves in trouble. We have the TSE (England) Regulations 2002, which would cope with any possible cases of BSE in sheep. The major fear is that sheep may have BSE which can be transmitted to humans. As I said—I have objected to this all along—we have those regulations if we happen to need that power. If we concentrate on scrapie and the national scrapie plan and put that on to a statutory basis, we might focus a bit better when dealing with the Bill.

Lord Whitty: I agree with the last two or three sentences that the noble Countess uttered. I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, but it is the opposite of what the amendment and the move to delete Clause 5 are about. The reality is that we have a national scrapie plan, which has been supported and agreed with the industry on a voluntary basis. We wish to speed it up by providing for certain mandatory powers for the Government to accelerate that process. That national scrapie plan exists and we know where we want to get to. There may be arguments about aspects of it but we know that it is there. That is why this part of the Bill is about scrapie. Eliminating scrapie will have the effect of eliminating TSEs that might be masked by scrapie. There is the possibility that breeding out susceptibility to other TSEs in sheep could make use of a similar plan.
	This is the implementation of a plan which already exists. We do not have a similar plan for deer or for other animals susceptible to the various diseases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. It is therefore sensible to describe this for what it is—that is, a means of implementing the national scrapie plan. We have to recognise also that at various points it could impact and provide the basis and the means whereby we could tackle other TSEs in sheep—although, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, an order would be required to so extend it. Indeed, the full implementation of the scrapie plan will require further orders before the House.
	Primarily, this provides the framework to deliver the national scrapie plan. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue these amendments.

Baroness Byford: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The wisest thing I can do at this stage is to withdraw the amendment and read what has been said in Hansard. We have had a rough start to the day—I use that term politely; I do not mean it in any rude way—and I need an opportunity to look at what has been said. I ask the Government to consider carefully my Amendment No. 2 before we return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Greaves: I intervene on clause stand part because my noble friend Lord Livesy and I believe that there are a number of general issues in regard to the scrapie provisions in the Bill which would benefit from a general discussion of them. I wish to put a number of general questions to the Government which were not adequately dealt with in the Second Reading debate, now more than six months distant. That debate lasted for more than five hours but, for reasons we all understand, most discussion centred on Clause 1 of the Bill and not Clause 5 and Schedule 2, which deal with scrapie. Although the Minister referred to scrapie in opening, he did not say much at all in response to some of the points made during the debate.
	I should like to put some general points to the Government. If the Minister can answer them to the satisfaction of the Committee, that will help in our deliberations on the more detailed, specific points we will come to later, one or two of which have been touched on in the unusual and interesting discussions so far.
	My first question relates to the timetable envisaged by the Government if the clause and the schedule are agreed to. Only 12 months have elapsed since the national scrapie plan was first announced and got under way. That is not a long period in which to assess how it is working. Given that the plan was launched in the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak, which took up everyone's energy and attention even into the autumn of last year, organisations such as the NFU which suggest that the national scrapie plan has not yet been given a fair wind have a great deal of logic on their side.
	On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
	"At the present rate, it could take far too long to have the desired effect".
	He has not yet answered the questions of how long is reasonable and how long is "far too long".
	He continued:
	"Therefore, the Bill will enable us, if necessary, to accelerate the process of eradication by compulsory means".
	It is very clear that that is the reason the Government are bringing forward the Bill. But, in the Minister's opinion, under what circumstances and time-scale will it become necessary?
	He then said:
	"we believe that these powers are necessary further down the line".—[Official Report, 14/1/02; col. 842.]
	That raises the crucial point, reflected in later amendments, of when is "further down the line" and at what stage would the Minister introduce these additional powers. I raise these issues now because the Minister did not have time to reply to them on Second Reading.
	My second question relates to rare breeds and traditional breeds. Again there was some discussion of this issue at Second Reading. To avoid having to re-invent the wheel now, perhaps I may quote what I said then:
	"There is a real concern about the effect that the provisions will have on rare and traditional breeds and on the diversity of the gene stock within this country. In Committee the Government and the Minister will have to tackle that matter head on and provide satisfactory answers . . . the question is how it [the elimination of scrapie] is done and what knock-on effects there may be and its effects on the rare and traditional breeds".—[Official Report, 14/1/02; col. 925.]
	This is a fundamental question which will run throughout the debate. If the Minister can make a statement on it at the beginning it will be extremely interesting.
	I should like to ask, in particular, about the existing rare breeds genotyping scheme—which I understand applies to the 27 or 28 breeds recognised by the Rare Breeds Survival Trust—being carried out by DEFRA with the co-operation of the trust and many owners. It differs from the national scrapie plan because it is not certificated and there is no obligation to castrate or cull on the basis of the results—in other words, it is unconditional. The assurance at the moment is that it is in no way a cast-iron scheme which will result in culling.
	It is important that we understand what the implications of Clause 5 will be in relation to those particular breeds if the Bill becomes law. Will they be incorporated into it? By what means will the Minister and the Government protect rare breeds and, indeed, a wider range of traditional breeds which may be susceptible to scrapie and under threat if special arrangements are not made for them? I refer specifically to Herdwicks. I understand that only 5 per cent of Herdwicks are of the most scrapie resistant genotype. This is clearly a matter of great concern.
	That leads me to my third question. Why is this legislation needed now? What evidence does the Minister have, on the basis of the first 12 months of the national scrapie plan, under extremely difficult conditions, that the scrapie plan will not work and that this extra legislation is required? I do not believe that that has been clearly stated and we need to understand why?
	My fourth question is: what is the evidence for the Government's clear belief that there is robust science behind the proposals? This is obviously a complex area which most Members of your Lordships' House will not find easy to understand or deal with. We can understand conflicting opinions and differing points of view, and it is quite clear that, at the very least, there is a great deal of controversy among people who can be counted as experts as to whether the science behind the proposals is robust. There are issues such as the interaction of genes and whether scrapie-resistant sheep are genuinely scrapie resistant or whether the apparent resistance is merely masking slow development of the disease.
	There is the question of how many varieties of scrapie there are. We are told that there are possibly 20. I am bewildered as to whether breeding out one of these types of scrapie might open the door to other types of the disease. There is the question of the mutation of scrapie prions. All these are extremely difficulty scientific matters on which most of us cannot give a clear opinion. It would be helpful if the Minister could publish a statement during the Summer Recess, before the Report stage of the Bill, setting out the Government's position as regards the validity and robustness of the science behind all this. A public statement could then be placed under scrutiny by those with a more detailed understanding of these matters.
	Finally, the crucial question arises of why the Government believe that the regime of control for the eradication of scrapie should in effect mirror the regime of control that they propose in other parts of the Bill in relation to foot and mouth disease. The situation seems to be quite different. On the one hand, we have a disease which is absent from the country, but which nevertheless is very infectious. When it arrives, it can spread very rapidly, with devastating consequences, as we saw last year. Later, we shall discuss whether we believe the Government's proposed measures on foot and mouth are the right ones; but one can understand why they believe that draconian measures are necessary in order to achieve the speed of reaction in terms of control.
	Scrapie is a very different sort of disease. It may be a very nasty disease, but it is endemic. It has been in the sheep flock in this country for 200 or 300 years. It surely does not require the same kind of immediacy of action and the same kind of draconian measures that foot and mouth may require. The two diseases are quite different. Yet, as my noble friend said earlier, it looks as though the provisions in the part of the Bill relating to scrapie have been the result of what might be called lazy draftsmanship—the idea being that if the measures have been included in one part of the Bill, they can simply be added, in almost exactly the same words, in another. There is a great deal of concern that these provisions are not appropriate for a very different sort of disease and very different circumstances.
	I hope that the Minister will respond to these points. Members of the Committee will no doubt wish to raise others. If he can respond clearly and comprehensively, it will help us a great deal in our discussions on the later, more detailed amendments.

The Countess of Mar: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for so ably opposing the Question that Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill. There is now a large body of information about the genetic factors relating to scrapie in sheep; but less is known about BSE resistance in sheep, which is what we are really talking about. We are concerned about BSE getting into the human food chain. The noble Lord knows my thoughts on that.
	Virtually nothing is known about what might happen to the sheep flock. If we wipe out a very large amount of the genetic pool, we might also be wiping out resistance to foot-rot, for example. My husband and I have Black Welsh Mountain sheep—I should declare that we belong to the national scrapie plan and that our sheep were recently tested. Some sheep have very strong hooves and do not get foot-rot, while others are prone to it. Shall we at the same time be wiping out the sheep that have such resistance?
	What consideration has been given to breeding immunity to scrapie in the sheep flock. I understand that in the 1730s there was a petition to Parliament asking that it do something about scrapie. It strikes me that scrapie must have been much more prevalent in those days than it is now. I do not have figures on the incidence of scrapie in the 1730s.
	British farmers have been very good as regards breeding disease resistance into their animals. Why should we not continue to do that? Why should not research money be put into that? I ask again: why does there seem to be a greater prevalence of scrapie in Oxfordshire, Cumbria, part of Yorkshire and the Shetlands than there is in other parts of the country? Could it relate to some mineral deficiency or some mineral excess? It is notable that in Iceland, for example, where there was lot of scrapie, they killed the whole of their sheep flock; they reintroduced sheep and found that scrapie reappeared in certain valleys. What is the explanation? It is surely not a question of infection.
	I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Please will the Minister give us the science on which this part of the Bill is based? If the science is not there, is it not better to leave the national scrapie plan as a voluntary plan rather than forcing farmers to do something which might in the end cause a lot of damage? I note that we shall be discussing amendments on protecting biodiversity. We need to consider these matters very carefully.

Lord Jopling: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words about scrapie. I must begin by apologising to the Committee for not declaring my farming interests when I spoke earlier—although I have not owned sheep for a great many years.
	At Second Reading, I confined my remarks almost entirely to the implications of these provisions in terms of foot and mouth disease and some of the enforcement arrangements. I thought that I would keep my general comments for this debate on Clause 5 stand part. I am glad to express those points now.
	I have known about scrapie ever since I was a boy. I can remember being taught about scrapie at university. The noble Countess referred to her sheep being tested for scrapie. I remember being told when I was at university that the farmers' test in the old days was to put their thumb on the brow of the sheep and press. If the thumb went through the skull, that meant that the sheep had scrapie and was culled. It was a pretty crude and horrible way of doing it, but I can remember being told that that was the way in which farmers, particularly in the Uplands used to discover whether their sheep were suffering from this extremely nasty disease.
	When I was first elected to another place, in the late 1960s, I was joint secretary of the Conservative Back-Bench Agriculture Committee, with that great agriculturist, Sir Peter Mills, who is sadly deceased. We were approached by a sheep dealer from the North of England whom I knew, Mr Metcalfe, who was based in Darlington. He wrote to us to say that he was desperately concerned about scrapie and asked to come and talk to our Back-Bench committee, which he did. I believe I am right in saying that he also talked to the Labour Back-Bench committee as well. His message was that we really should understand what a dreadful scourge scrapie was. He expressed the belief that it could easily spread to other species. I do not think that Mr Metcalfe had ever been anywhere near a university or any great seat of agricultural learning, but he had a good deal of good sense. I am afraid that, to our discredit—and to that of the Labour Party too, as I recall—we listened politely and said, "Yes. Well, maybe, one day", and did not take his view too seriously. What a pity we did not. He was right. He was foretelling the future, and we all know what the future has brought about. I personally welcome the efforts being made to try to deal with the scourge of scrapie.
	I am particularly concerned about the Herdwick flock. I do not know, but I guess that my constituency when I was in another place contained up to half the Herdwick sheep in the country. They are confined to the high areas of the Lake District. Without the Herdwicks, those bleak Lake District mountains could not possibly be farmed, because no other breed could live and thrive there. Some people have tried other breeds over the years, but they have all failed.
	That breed is crucial for the Lake District, not only for the livelihood of those who farm in those areas, but for those who go to enjoy the environmental beauties of the Lake District. The look of those mountains would be very much changed if, because of these arrangements, they were not grazed by Herdwick sheep. That is a serious problem.
	I am not saying that nothing should be done about scrapie. We should do something about scrapie, but at the same time I hope that the Government will do everything they can to bring about a timescale or some form of support for that breed, which is crucial for the farming prosperity of the Lake District and for the amenity value that visitors from all over the world enjoy.
	Finally, I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said about the need for the Government to produce a full scientific statement to bring us up to date before we proceed further with these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has made a most useful suggestion. I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to look at that and consider whether something can be produced so that we know the exact state of current scientific knowledge on this horrible disease, which has ravaged so many parts of our country for centuries.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving us the chance to consider this important issue. It is unnecessary to repeat what other noble Lords have said, because they have all spoken well. The problem with following my noble friend Lord Jopling is that he usually pinches everything that I wish to say. I am grateful to him for his comments. I had already written down one or two questions that I wanted to ask.
	As other noble Lords have said, the National Sheep Association is obviously pushing ahead with its scrapie plan. What is the Government's current spending towards that plan? Presumably they are helping this voluntary organisation of work that the National Sheep Association is giving. If not, I wonder why not. How much of the £431 million allocated in the recent spending review is going into current research on scrapie and on testing? Will the Minister also give us some indication on timings? I acknowledged earlier that the national scrapie plan had been delayed because of the foot and mouth outbreak. What timings, if any, do the Government have on how they can move the agenda forward?
	Thirdly, following my noble friend's comments on rare breeds, of all the lobbying that I have had in the past year, one of the biggest groups—and yet they are the smallest groups—has been those who specialise in rare breeds. Many of them are very anxious, knowing that some of their sheep will fall within the scrapie provision. They are also anxious because they are not just kept as pure breeds, but are used in a cross-breed capacity. As my noble friend Lord Jopling has just said, it is particularly relevant that the Herdwick sheep seem to be the only ones able to survive in some of the very bleak mountains up in the North.
	Finally, picking up on my noble friend's point, which I wanted to raise, one of the difficulties currently facing most of the farming industry is their lack of income. That is particularly relevant to those who keep sheep. The turnover for those who breed sheep is very small. As the letter I read out earlier pointed out, if we put additional hurdles in their way, there is a great risk that many farmers will be squeezed out of existence. As my noble friend Lord Jopling rightly asked, where does that leave the future for our landscape in some of the very remote areas where no other animal can survive?
	Those are my few questions for the noble Lord. First, what money is being paid on the existing voluntary scheme? Secondly, what money is going into research and how much of the new £431 million is being made available? Thirdly, what timings do the Government have in mind to move the programme forward?

Lord Whitty: I clearly oppose the implications of the clause not standing part of the Bill, but we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving us the opportunity of this debate, which allows me to explain the principles of the plan and allows other noble Lords to raise some of those principles.
	The existing scrapie plan is voluntary. It has been agreed with the industry and is supported by substantial scientific opinion, in particular by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and, on the enforcement side, by the Food Standards Agency. Farmers who enter their sheep in the plan can genotype them to establish whether they are genetically resistant to scrapie. Breeding controls are then imposed on the more susceptible sheep.
	That is dealing with scrapie directly. There is also the theoretical risk that BSE could be found in sheep. It is important to achieve a flock that is resistant to scrapie and to BSE if it is masked by scrapie.
	However, it is clear that the voluntary plan, to which scientific opinion, the industry and the Government are all committed, is likely to take a long time to have the desired effect. The plan was launched in July 2001, with a genotyping scheme for pure pedigree flocks. Uptake on that first appeal was less than expected. It was only just over 4,000 as of the beginning of this month. We then announced a further extension to non-registered flocks in January this year. More than 2,000 have subscribed to that.
	Assuming that all goes well and we continue at that rate, the estimate for the elimination of scrapie in 50 per cent of the rams in the flock—which is the best method of calculating—is 25 years. That is why we wish to speed up the process. The noble Countess referred to anxieties in 1730. Whatever methods farmers in the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and elsewhere have used have not succeeded in eliminating scrapie in that time. We have a rather tighter time horizon in mind. We want to deal with half the problem in 25 years. We do not have a specific end-date, but if we did it would be substantially less than 25 years—and the accelerated process could get us there much quicker.
	In terms of immediate take-up, it is perhaps more important to establish in the mind of the industry the Government's commitment to the scheme. That commitment includes not only money—an issue mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to which I shall return shortly—but also the indication that, if necessary, we will use mandatory powers to ensure that the scheme is delivered in total. We therefore need the Bill's legislative powers to back up the current voluntary scheme.
	There is a wider European dimension. There are programmes for breeding out TSEs in the Netherlands and in France, and the European Commission has proposed minimum requirements for EU-wide genotyping. Much of that has been influenced by our own national scrapie plan. So there is a major Europe-wide movement to eliminate scrapie as fast as possible from the flock. "As fast as possible", in our view, means that we will have to speed up what would happen voluntarily. These methods are part of that.
	The resources which the Government are providing are composed of various subsets of figures. The total figure, however, is about £120 million. So the Government are clearly showing the priority that we assign to improving the robustness and quality of our national flock.
	The plan is based on the substantial quantity of available scientific information, although we will have better information as we continue. As a greater proportion of the flock is genotyped, the weaknesses and strengths will become clearer. We know that some sheep breeds do not have all 15 of the scrapie genotypes and that some have only a handful. We also know that only about four of the genotypes can be considered as resistant or semi-resistant. There is a quite significant difference between breeds. If we find that a particular breed has a very low incidence of resistant genes, we can consider pursuing breeding restrictions such as those provided for in the Bill.

The Duke of Montrose: I believe that the Minister is talking about scrapie-susceptible genotypes rather than scrapie genotypes.

Lord Whitty: The noble Duke is clearly correct. This approach is based on a quite wide range of science. Although publication of all the science would be difficult, a substantial volume of it has been published in both the UK and worldwide. I refer particularly to SEAC's own 1999 report which dealt with research into and surveillance of TSEs in sheep. The WHO and the OIE—the world animal health organisation—produced a summary of the scientific evidence following a consultation in February 2000. There are also other relevant publications. So there is a substantial range of scientific information. If it would be helpful, I can place in the Library a bibliography of the relevant research.
	One of the clear implications of the research is that we may find that some breeds and some areas have a higher proportion of scrapie susceptible sheep than others. That is what has increased the anxiety among some of the rare breed societies and others with sheep with particular features. However, the Bill does not take a uni-dimensional approach. Not only is the overall plan to be developed in conjunction and consultation with all parts of the industry, but the Bill explicitly recognises the possibility of exemption from restrictions that we might have to impose on breeding in certain circumstances. However, one does not have to be too prescriptive at this stage, and orders will follow under this legislation.
	We certainly intend to work with the individual breed societies to agree with them realistic timetables for breeding in resistance to TSEs and how their own breed improvement plans relate to the TSE elimination plan. The fact that a breed is rare does not mean that it is incapable of increasing its resistance to TSEs; many breeds are capable. However, if there turn out to be cases in which the survival of the breed is threatened and total resistance to scrapie is shown to be wholly impracticable, that would seem to us to constitute an exceptional circumstance. We would need to deal with such cases in conjunction with the breed societies and the industry as a whole. Regardless, we would continue to consult with them and the pedigree groups, and to consult the scientific advice to try to ensure that our approach preserves flocks to which special conditions apply. The principle of a joint approach with the industry runs through both the voluntary plan and the plan which will be strengthened by the provisions in this clause.
	I believe that I have dealt at least generally with most of the points. The main point is that this clause is the means of enabling us to deliver the national scrapie plan. It gives teeth to the national scrapie plan and accelerates it. However, not only does it do that in consultation and conjunction with the industry; it takes account of the special circumstances presented by particular breeds, particular areas or particular terrain.
	I therefore oppose the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. However, I thank him for the opportunity of this more general discussion.

The Countess of Mar: If the noble Lord is going to write to us, I would be very grateful if he will do me one more little favour. I have taken off the DEFRA website the incidence of scrapie in Great Britain for January, February, March and April 2002. The numbers are only very small. Perhaps he can let us know where those cases occurred and which breeds of sheep were involved. There were only 113 positive cases in the whole of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the information for England would be sufficient; although the Welsh Members of the Committee might like to see the relevant figures. That information might be interesting and help us to form in our own minds how matters are progressing.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his comments. He said that £120 million has been put aside, but he did not say how much of that has already been spent or what timeframe it is meant to cover. I appreciate that he may not be able to answer today. If he cannot, I would be grateful if he will write to me and place a copy in the Library.

Lord Whitty: I am happy to undertake to write to the noble Baroness and to place the information in the Library. However, the exact speed and profile of the spend is subject to the speed with which we can introduce the genotyping, particularly during the voluntary stage of the plan. Nevertheless, I confirm that I shall provide what detail I can.
	I am happy to see whether it is possible to provide the noble Countess, Lady Mar, with the information that she requested. One of the problems in this whole issue is that the information available suggests that scrapie is a greatly under-reported disease. On one estimate, only one in eight cases is reported. Therefore, given the geographical and breed profiles, information on the cases reported might be misleading in terms of actual incidence of the disease. Nevertheless, I shall do what I can to provide that information.

Lord Greaves: I thank the Minister for replying in considerable detail to most of the points that have been raised. I return briefly to two very specific ones. I mentioned the national genotyping scheme for rare breeds, and I asked him how the scheme would fit in with his proposals on future testing and the move towards making the national scrapie plan compulsory rather than voluntary. I should be grateful for a reply on that point.
	Secondly, the Minister's response to a request for the science on which all of this is based was to refer us to a series of deeply academic papers, a list of which he will place in the Library. I wonder whether, at the least, he could also tell us what emphasis the Government place on each of those papers. It is a series of academic papers, and they are bound to differ in some respects.
	Finally, I refer to a broad question which I do not think that the Minister answered. Why should the same kind of legal framework of compulsion apply to a disease such as scrapie as would apply to a very different disease such as FMD?

Lord Whitty: I apologise for not addressing that point. I believe that the provisions to which the noble Lord refers are those relating to entry and powers of slaughter. The compulsory implementation of the scrapie plan would require powers of slaughter and, were there resistance to those powers, powers of entry. When one is dealing with a disease such as BSE, which is covered by the TSE regulations, or FMD, the powers do not have the same purpose. However, one would still require powers of access and of execution. Therefore, the relevant powers are similar but they have a different purpose.

Lord Greaves: I accept that but in the situation to which I refer the powers would not necessarily require the same speedy timescale. It would be possible to provide a longer period for appeals and discussion in particular cases.

Lord Whitty: That might be the case. However, allowing livestock to breed on a substantial scale in certain circumstances could be detrimental to the achievement of the targets in the national scrapie plan and therefore a degree of speed may be required.
	As regards the national genotyping scheme of individual breeds, I thought I had indicated that a genotype identification operation run by the rare breed societies or others would need to be compatible with the national genotyping scheme. The genotyping scheme and the national scrapie plan would also need to be compatible. We should like to discuss that matter with the rare breed societies and with other representative groups.
	I am a little wary of Ministers oversimplifying science. That could get us into serious trouble. However, I shall see whether I can help the noble Lord on that point but I cannot promise to provide the information in the form he has requested.

Clause 5 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Scrapie]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 14, line 37, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In moving Amendment No. 11, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 28, 32, 36, 39, 40, 46, 48, 56, 61, 62, 64, 66 and 91. These are technical amendments reflecting the recent transfer of functions order whereby functions previously carried out by the Minister will be carried out by the Secretary of State. As a result, we need to amend the provisions in the Bill relating to scrapie as well as the foot and mouth disease and other provisions so that powers are now given to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Lord Jopling: The old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has disappeared before our eyes with relatively little of a whimper. I believe that the Committee will agree that it has as a department been vilified, particularly recently, as being in need of being done away with and amalgamated into the thing that is now called DEFRA. I believe that this is an appropriate moment to make a plea to the noble Baroness to refer a point to the Secretary of State.
	I believe that the defamation of MAFF, as I shall call it, is not fair. It ignores the huge contribution MAFF made to Britain's food supplies in the years during and after the war. It does not take account of great Ministers such as Tom Williams, Fred Peart, Tommy Dugdale and others who played a massive part in creating the prosperous state of agriculture that existed only a few years ago.
	In the old days there was always a Minister of Agriculture. He was the only member of the Cabinet who did not hold the rank of Secretary of State. In 1983 I became Minister of Agriculture. Lord Peart—our much missed old friend—said to me at that time, "Michael, you won't allow yourself to become a Secretary of State, will you"? I replied, "I am not of a mind to". But, lo and behold, shortly afterwards a note was sent to me from the Cabinet Office stating that it would be much neater and more convenient if the Minister would allow himself to be upgraded to the rank of Secretary of State. It amounted to the Cabinet Office bowing the knee to the great God of uniformity.
	I told my officials that we had always historically had a Minister of Agriculture rather than a Secretary of State for Agriculture. They replied that it would be to my advantage to accept the title as I would rise in the rank of precedence. I asked, "What on earth is that"? I cannot remember exactly what they replied, but I say illustratively, "It will put you one peg up after the third son of a Marquess". I said that I could think of nothing more irrelevant and stupid than to rise in a rank of precedence of which I had never heard. I also said that the title of Minister of Agriculture had been good enough for everyone in the past.
	I hope that the Committee will not consider me too nostalgic when I ask whether it is not too late to return to that historic role. The noble Baroness may say that the Secretary of State now has other duties besides those that were embraced by MAFF. However, it was a fine department. Many of us who served in it were extremely proud of it. I realise that to revert to that title is a case of turning back the clock but I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to say to the Secretary of State that it would be a good public relations move if he would allow himself to be demoted with regard to the crazy order of precedence and go back to being Minister of Agriculture. I believe that I am right in saying that a Minister holding such a title would be the only member of the Cabinet not holding the rank of Secretary of State. I believe that such a move would be greatly appreciated by the farming industry. I believe that that industry would prefer to have someone with the title of Minister in charge of their affairs. I understand the purpose of the amendments. The noble Baroness may consider that I am being over sentimental. I apologise if that is the case. However, as I say, such a move would go down well.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. At least it enables me to place on record our recognition of the many fine contributions of Ministers and officials in the history of MAFF. The noble Lord raised a matter that I cannot remember, but I bow to his greater knowledge.
	I do not recollect an occasion in my lifetime when farmers alleged that they were prospering and doing well. In saying that, I do not in any way underestimate the degree of severity that members of the farming community have experienced recently. However, I believe that the noble Lord will understand the point that I make.
	The noble Lord is concerned about the role of the Minister as opposed to that of the Secretary of State. I can only say to the noble Lord that I have three sons whom I view as equals. I do not believe that I shall ever be equal to the third son of a Marquess in the terms in which the noble Lord couched it.
	The order which transferred the powers was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002, which, I understand, was agreed on 27th March. Sadly, I fear that I cannot undertake to go back and ask for another change with a view to returning to your Lordships to reconsider the order. However, I am delighted to place on the record the fine work that has been done in the past.

Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may add my thanks to my noble friend for his observation. It is a pity that the Government do not have a Minister of Agriculture. As the noble Lord and noble Baroness will know, we have such a post on these Benches. We have a person who still has responsibility for acting for the food and farming community and who is a Shadow Cabinet member. Therefore, I want to place on record that my noble friend has raised an important point. It is a post that we value and we still have a Shadow Cabinet member who acts in that capacity.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I associate my remarks with those of the two previous speakers. MAFF has played an enormous part in the life of this country and, on the whole, a very constructive one. I believe we should be grateful to have been reminded of the work done in the past and to have been reminded of the people who have toiled long and hard to produce food for this country in times of great hardship with, indeed, great fortitude. It is right that that is placed on the record.
	At the same time, it is worth observing that other countries, particularly in the European Union, still have Ministers of Agriculture who act in a specific capacity in relation to agriculture. We have included rural affairs as well as agriculture in that post. But it is important that the status of the Minister who deals with agriculture is such that he can meet his cohorts in the rest of the European Union and in powerful places such as, for example, the United States, where he represents British agriculture, the interests of farmers and, indeed, consumers.
	There is sometimes a danger of agriculture being marginalised within DEFRA. I notice that that has occurred in the other place, where, since the formation of the new DEFRA, questions about agriculture have tended to be marginalised and fewer questions have been raised. We need to be vigilant about that in the interests of the farming community.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In responding to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, it has not been our experience that questions on agriculture have been slow in coming forward in your Lordships' House. It is not for me to comment on the priorities of those who put questions in another place.
	I appreciate the comments that have been made. I am sure that both the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will agree that, particularly in view of the revision that is currently envisaged and being discussed with regard to the CAP, the relationship between agriculture and the environment is extremely important. Therefore, it is possible that for some functions DEFRA is the more appropriate ministry.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before calling Amendment No. 12, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 under the pre-emption rules.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 14, line 37, leave out ", in his opinion,"

Lord Plumb: I rise to move Amendment No. 12 on behalf of my noble friends Lady Byford and the Duke of Montrose. I declare an interest as a livestock farmer and as president of the much-quoted National Sheep Association, which came in for both support and attack during the course of the afternoon. There were moments when I wished that I was on the Back Benches for a little while. However, we were reminded of the importance of obeying the rules of the House. Therefore, I obeyed the rules of the House by remaining seated.
	My noble friend Lord Jopling has been reminiscing. The words that he spoke rang a very loud bell with me and were rather nostalgic. Perhaps I may also be a little nostalgic in saying that in 1946 I spent many months learning about scrapie under the great Professor Parry, who was way ahead of his time. As we debate this issue, I begin to wonder what has changed. But, of course, that was long before websites came into being.
	The amendment may seem small but it is one of importance. I believe that the phrase "in his opinion" is superfluous and, in the context of the Bill, it is meaningless. No Minister, including, I am sure, our present Minister or Secretary of State, is likely to make orders if it is not his opinion that they should be made. In a situation where the Bill does not demand the reassurances of an expert judgment, the Minister will most likely not have an opinion on the subject. In those circumstances, he will doubtless sign orders which are placed in front of him by others who, according to this clause, are not necessarily restricted as to motivation, knowledge or experience. At least let us ensure that the Minister is in a position to know enough about what he is doing with the information available from the experts to have a valid opinion.
	I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14. That amendment is similar, but it stresses that,
	"the opinion of the chief veterinary officer and the President of the British Veterinary Association",
	should be taken into account. There is sometimes doubt between the various experts as to the conclusivity of research into scrapie genotypes. There can also be a variation between test results from different laboratories, even when presented with samples taken from the same animal at any one time. The finality of slaughter and a ban on breeding mean that the Minister must be advised to act only where the level of doubt about diagnosis is extremely low. Therefore, before slaughter, it is important to minimise the level of doubt to the lowest reasonably objective point. I believe that that point was made by the Minister a little while ago. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 12 and also to Amendment No. 13, in which the statement of evidence to prove that there is evidence that disease is present is certainly allied with Amendment No. 14. That amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, stated, concerns consultations with the chief veterinary officer and the president of the BVA.
	Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 go together in that the Minister's opinion must surely be the result of consultation. It would be better to state in the amendments what the consultation will be. Obviously, other scientific bodies may be consulted in order to get the necessary evidence to take an action.

Lord Whitty: We had some earlier discussion on the scientific basis of the national scrapie plan. There is a wide range of science which supports the approach in relation to TSEs. It has received the support of the formal advisory committees and the scientific community in general.
	The phrase "in the Minister's opinion" does not mean that the Minister is in a position to outguess this wealth of scientific information and judgments. But it means that at the end of the day the judgment is the Ministers and if there is a conflict between the scientific advice the buck stops with him. If we refer that back in the slightly odd way that Amendment No. 14 does to named scientists, the president pro tem of the BVA may not be the expert in this field and it is quite rare for a senior civil servant to be designated as the single source of advice. But clearly the Minister has the judgment to make. He also has, by implication in all such legislation, the duty to act with reasonableness. That means that the scientific evidence has to be seen to be weighed in any judgment and the Minister ultimately makes that judgment.
	The activation of the powers will require an order. Should the Committee believe that the judgment was completely wrong—although it is the negative procedure—it will obviously have the means to oppose that order. It must be clear that finally it is the Minister's judgment. That is the traditional way to express that in legislation.

Lord Jopling: I understand what the Minister says with regard to what in practice is the Minister's opinion. Having listened to the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer on a great many occasions trying to influence the judgment of the Minister, I know exactly what he is talking about.
	Perhaps the Minister can give us some guidance which might help as we approach the Report stage of the Bill. Does he think that he could table an amendment on Report stating that,
	"in his opinion after consulting with"—
	for example—
	"the relevant breed societies, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the National Sheep Association ..."?
	That would put an onus on the Minister before he forms his opinion, which will clearly be influenced by the Chief Veterinary Officer. It also includes an obligation to consult with some of these other bodies. That would be a sensible way to pursue the issue. Perhaps he could give a green light, either for us or for him to table an amendment on Report. I hope that I am being constructive. I am trying to be.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I agree with the general thrust of the amendments. The Minister is right that Amendment No. 14 is too precise and prescriptive. That might also apply to the suggestion just made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Many of us would be uneasy if the phrase "in his opinion" rested on the face of the Bill as it stands.
	It is difficult to know why the Minister wants to resist Amendment No. 13. That says in clear language what he has said he would do in practice—he will take expert advice and he would need evidence before he came to his judgment. The Minister should accept Amendment No. 13, or tell us what form of re-assuring words he would like, rather than the dangerously subjective words "in his opinion".

Lord Whitty: I am always willing to consider matters further without at this stage making a commitment to tabling an amendment. I add two qualifications to that. First, this will be subject not only to the initial draft order but to consultation on the draft order. Therefore, in practice a wide range of people will be consulted before it is finally enacted.
	Secondly, I should be somewhat wary of committing myself to engaging on a list process of those to be consulted. There are some people who would be consulted in those circumstances. It is always those who might be or feel excluded by lists that cause problems.
	However, I take the tone of what several noble Lords have said. We will have a look at it and perhaps come back on Report. I undertake to address the matter on Report.

Lord Plumb: I thank the Minister for his response. Although Amendment No. 14 is precise, the Chief Veterinary Officer and the president of the British Veterinary Association have ultimate responsibility. They have their experts in the field who they can contact.
	However, the Minister has been helpful in his response. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before calling Amendment No. 15, I have to inform the Committee that if this amendment were to be agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 16 under the pre-emption rules.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 14, line 38, leave out "are more susceptible than other sheep genotypes" and insert "have a Risk rating of greater than that presently defined as R3"

The Duke of Montrose: In moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 which have been grouped together.
	My interest lies in the herds of cattle and sheep that I own, all of which require to be acclimatised to remain in good health.
	This group of amendments has two purposes. First, it is not the intention to halt the proper precautionary measures, but to ensure that the policy proceeds in a measured way. It is entirely appropriate that, as the Government's research develops and the susceptibility of each genotype becomes clearer, the Minister should return to Parliament to outline his intended steps.
	Secondly, within the parameters of safety, the amendments would allow breeders of the major and minor breeds more time to breed the susceptibility out of their flocks. We have already heard that correspondence has been received from the National Sheep Association which points out the desirability of having this time.
	We are entering a field of experimentation and unproved science in addressing the problem. A great many Members of the Committee have mentioned that today. The fact that it concerns the PrP gene means that that experiment is charged with emotion, with visions of mad cows and new variant CJD lurking either just below the horizon or, in some cases, above the horizon.
	Can the Minister tell us exhaustively what the PrP gene does—at least in terms that the ordinary layman can understand? How will we ever know whether it is associated with valuable sought after traits, when in the present state of science we regard its variants as harbouring potential harm.
	I shall illustrate the problem that arises from one of our major breeds. Of the 20 million breeding sheep in the United Kingdom, three million belong to the Blackface breed. These have been bred for wintering outside in hill and mountain conditions. That breed has never been known to contract scrapie under natural conditions. In the samples of all breeds carried out so far under the national scrapie plan, 33 per cent were from the most resistant category. Of the Blackface breed, only 9 per cent have turned out to have this characteristic.
	There are not many who would quarrel with the Government's idea that the 3 per cent of the national flock, or the 1 per cent of the Blackface breed that are considered to be highly susceptible, should be removed at an early time—possibly immediately. The problem arises in the middle ground, which contains 64 per cent of the national flock, but 90 per cent of the Blackface breed.
	The fact that the most resistant strain is so poorly represented in this breed may suggest something about the relationship of the PrP gene to survivability in adverse circumstances. I am sure that the Minister is aware, because I have received communications to this effect from the breed society, that if he removed all Blackface sheep with a risk factor of three and below, it would be impossible to provide sufficient rams for the national flock in the next two years.
	For another threat in the argument, I draw the Committee's attention to a meeting held by the Rare Breeds Survival Trust on 18th December 2001. Professor Peter Smith presented evidence suggesting that when BSE was experimentally induced—or introduced—into sheep, animals possessing the most susceptible genome variant still showed no sign of infection after almost 200 days. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether there have been advances in that research but there is a chance that, with the best of intentions, we could be removing the very thing that makes sheep BSE-resistant.
	I ask the Minister to bear those points in mind when considering the validity of my amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I strongly support the amendments. I have a background in farming, although I am not engaged in it at present. Progress has been made with the National Sheep Plan, but the description of susceptibility—in particular, the use of the phrase "more susceptible than other sheep genotypes"—is not entirely appropriate. "Most susceptible" would certainly not be very appropriate, especially for commercial flocks. As has been described in relation to the Blackface breed, it will take some time to breed out those characteristics, especially in commercial flocks. In pedigree flocks, the situation is different. I shall address that question under another amendment.

The Countess of Mar: I support the noble Duke, Lord Montrose, especially on Amendment No. 16. I am not entirely happy with Amendment No. 15, because to incorporate the words "at the present time" in a Bill that may last for 10 years is a little dicey.
	The noble Duke has made clear what will happen to Blackface sheep, but we need to understand what part Blackface sheep play in our sheep industry. The ewes are crossed with Blue Leicester rams to make the Mule, and the Mule is the most common breeding ewe in the Lowlands. It provides the hardiness and mothering ability of the Highland sheep—the Blackface sheep—mixed with the milkiness and meatiness of the Lowland sheep and makes a jolly good mother. That sheep is then crossed with a continental sire to achieve lamb that fits the requirements of the modern housewife.
	If we wipe out 96 per cent—I think it was—of the Blackface flock, we shall be in serious trouble. We must consider the economic aspects as well as the genetic and disease aspects.

Lord Greaves: On Amendment No. 17, will the Minister explain what is the science behind understanding the susceptibility of particular sheep to becoming carriers?

Lord Whitty: The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and others asked several questions, not all of which I can answer, but I shall try to address the amendments, which clearly give us cause for concern, because they are too restrictive and prescriptive. As I said, we must bear in mind that the whole sheep plan will be carried out in conjunction with the industry. Clearly, how we deal with particular breeds and identified spreads of genes will be informed not only by science but by the future structure of the industry.
	For example, Amendment No. 16 would mean that we could not include in the order any genotypes that may none the less be TSE-susceptible—or may be found to be so in future—but are not the most susceptible. To go down that path would exclude us from advancing on a wide front against problems, some of which may be easier to deal with than others but may not be at the top range of susceptibility.
	As for the science, as the Committee will be aware, much scientific evidence describes the varying susceptibilities of the 15 known sheep genotypes. However, that is constantly being updated. How we carry out the plan will therefore also be constantly updated. That was implicit in the voluntary scheme and will be implicit in the compulsory elements of the scheme. We will base that on the best scientific knowledge at the time, taking the advice of SEAC and other scientific and regulatory bodies.
	The powers are enabling only. In other words, if we were to activate them, we should have to be able to defend them in the light of the prevailing scientific knowledge at the time, rather than be constrained by the wording of the Bill. Of course, it is true that under the present scrapie plan, there are already restrictions on sheep with R3 genotypes, but to be absolute, as is one of the amendments, is not the way in which we want to proceed.
	On the issue of the carrier, I shall probably have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but essentially, that evidence is based on the scientific information to which I referred earlier.
	All the amendments would provide a degree of prescription that may tie our hands later, whereas we want to act in the light of the best information and take the most appropriate action at the time.

Lord Jopling: To return to the previous point, I, too, intended to rise to ask the Minister the implication of paragraph (b) at the top of page 15:
	"to becoming carriers".
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, rose as I did to ask what I had wanted to ask. I do not really understand that paragraph.
	I am now trying to give the Minister time to find in his brief what I know from my experience of those with whom I used to work in my department will be there somewhere. I well know Ministers' problem when they are asked something and cannot immediately find it. I am trying to talk until he is ready and indicates to me that he has found in his brief the reference to carriers. I was entirely unaware that it was possible for animals to carry the disease without showing any clinical symptoms. I am surprised that it is possible to identify individual animals that are carriers although they do not show any clinical symptoms. I am beginning to run out of things to say.

Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Although I can give him some sort of answer, despite his efforts, I am not sure that it will be entirely satisfactory.
	One reason for the provision is that, although we may have limited experience of identification of potential carriers, research is at present being carried out in that area. Indeed, I understand that we are currently funding a total of 14 projects on the whole dimension of carriers. Inevitably, that is a long-term process. On present knowledge, it appears that infectivity by carriers is low, but we need the results of that research. Should the results of that research point to a particular susceptibility to produce carriers, we clearly want the powers to do something about that. That is what it relates to. It does not relate to specific immediate knowledge, but to the potential outcome if there were latent carriers in the flock.

Lord Jopling: I am grateful to the Minister, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will have more to say. Our discussion underlines the value of having a document before we return in October that lays out some of the scientific facts, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, proposed some time ago. It would be extremely helpful if we knew more about this sort of thing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will agree with me that it is the sort of thing that ought to go into the document that he proposed.

Lord Greaves: I am sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling; he has been agreeing with me. It is a circular process.
	I am still intrigued by the notion of carriers of the disease. Will the Minister tell us how the disease is transmitted from one animal to another? That information is crucial if we are to discuss carriers.

Lord Whitty: With regard to carriers, we reckon that there is a low level of infectivity at the moment. We are trying to establish whether there is a substantial problem with carriers. Until we have completed that research, we will not be able to identify the exact means of transmission. There could be several means of transmission, if carriers are not showing infectivity themselves but have, nevertheless, transmitted the disease in some way. At this point, not only do I not know the answer to that question, but the scientists do not know it.

Lord Greaves: Do they know the answer to the question how the disease is transmitted from an animal that has scrapie and shows all the clinical symptoms to an animal that has not yet got scrapie but might get it?

Lord Whitty: There are several different theories about whether there is spread via horizontal infectivity or via maternal transmission. The exact method of transmission has not been finally proven, as we found with BSE.

The Countess of Mar: Is it not the case that even the infectivity has not yet been proven? The Minister told us about 14 research projects that are trying to prove infectivity. How many research projects are looking into the possibility that the spread might be of environmental origin?

Lord Whitty: I cannot remember how many TSE projects there are, but it is a large number. They are carried out by DEFRA and by Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council institutions. Some deal with the environmental dimension, as well as the medical dimension.

The Countess of Mar: I should be delighted if the noble Lord would write to me.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for expressing his views on the amendments. I cannot say that I agree with his worry about time delay. In Amendment No. 16, we ask the Government to take out the reference to "more susceptible" elements. That would mean that the Minister could come back, at fairly short notice, with the next most susceptible, if it were a particular worry for him.
	I may not be fully up to speed on parliamentary procedure, but I think that the Minister could introduce a statutory instrument that included six or eight levels of susceptibility. We would have the option only of rejecting the whole thing, rather than being able to distinguish between the different levels and the risks involved. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 15, line 4, at end insert—
	"(c) subject to the guidelines outlined in a national scrapie plan, which shall be drafted by the Minister in consultation with relevant individuals and organisations, and which shall not be made unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I intend to ask the Minister some questions about the national scrapie plan, but, before I do, I shall tell the Committee that I come from a family both sides of which have been involved in sheep farming. I was brought up on a small farm with a sheep flock; I have managed flocks in Wales—flocks of my own—and in Scotland, where I managed flocks of Blackface sheep. So, I know something about the industry. I did not see scrapie until the mid-1950s. It had not been present in our district of Wales, but the methods of sheep breeding changed radically. Scrapie was a horrible thing to observe. It was particularly daunting to have seen it for the first time as a relatively young person. The aim of eradicating scrapie is good and honourable.
	I shall ask a question that ought to have been at the forefront of our debate: what status has the national scrapie plan? Should it not be in a Bill concerned with scrapie? We need a strategy for the eventual elimination of scrapie, and a national scrapie plan should, perhaps, be put into statute, given some of the clauses in the Bill and the proposed amendments. Later, I shall speak to Amendment No. 34, which contains ideas that ought to be in a national scrapie plan. I shall not speak on that now.
	Should the existing scrapie plan followed by the National Sheep Association and other bodies remain voluntary or should it be mandatory? What is the Minister's view about that? What is the present status of the national scrapie plan? After all, we can look back on the elimination of other diseases—notably tuberculosis and contagious abortion—in cattle. Some of those schemes started as voluntary schemes, before going onto statute and helping to eliminate those diseases. However, that took a long time, and it will take us considerable time to get to a scrapie- free national flock. I would like to know the Minister's views.
	I have discussed the matter with the secretary of the National Sheep Association, Mr John Thorley. He was anxious that the question be discussed, so that we could see whether the Minister wished to push the scheme further forward.

Baroness Byford: I understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, has tabled the amendment. However, as I understand it—I may be missing something—the Bill is before the Committee tonight so that we can put in on a mandatory footing. If I misunderstand the reasons behind the noble Lord's amendment, I apologise.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I bring it up because the Bill does not state the position clearly. It is implicit that we are discussing the national scrapie plan, but it is not laid down.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Lord for that interjection. I understood that the voluntary scheme would continue; I hope that it will. The Government are concerned at the speed of success that the scheme might have.
	I shall add a further question to those asked by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. I accept that the Government wish to make the scheme mandatory and take it forward that way, but I want to know at what point it will become a mandatory scheme. Will the Government leave the voluntary scheme in place for another six months or a year? Do they envisage that the mandatory scheme will kick in straight after the Bill becomes law?

Lord Carter: I apologise for the fact that I was not in my place for a few moments. Do the words, "and which shall not be made" refer to the scrapie plan or to the order that specifies the genotypes? The drafting is very ambiguous.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I would need to consider that. I cannot give an immediate answer.

Lord Carter: It is quite important. Some briefing I have seen suggests that the words refer to the genotype order. However, the noble Lord's amendment could be read as meaning that the national scrapie plan shall not be made unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I can assure the noble Lord that that was certainly my intention. I am sorry if that is not clear in the amendment as drafted.

Lord Carter: It suggests that the scrapie plan should be in the order. The briefing is about the genotype.

Lord Whitty: I agree that there is some ambiguity in what the noble Lord is proposing, but his clarification in a sense alarms me.
	When dealing with any disease, human or animal, there comes a point at which the Government may need to use mandatory powers. The Bill provides us with an opportunity of using those mandatory powers. I cannot say at what point the powers would be triggered. That will depend on the effectiveness of the voluntary scheme. But we need the powers to speed up the degree of voluntariness, because we know that eventually they may become compulsory, and to ensure that, if we need them, we have the powers on the statute book and do not need to come back to Parliament at some stage when matters are not proceeding very well.
	When dealing with malaria, animal health disease, TB, or whatever, Parliament has on occasions granted the Government powers to implement aspects of disease control or to improve conditions. The same powers would apply in this area. But it is not the disease eradication plan that has to be laid before and approved by Parliament. The genotype order is one of the instruments that the Government have, and one of the bases on which the plan will be carried out. However, the totality of the plan will inevitably alter as circumstances alter. To freeze it in a parliamentary, quasi-statutory way at one point in time is not the most effective means of disease control or flock improvement.
	Therefore, the idea that the plan itself should effectively be a parliamentary instrument is not the appropriate way forward. Clearly, Parliament needs to know what powers the Government have that can be compulsorily enforced and needs to ensure that the best and widest range of opinion is mobilised in support of the plan; but the plan itself is to be more flexible than the parliamentary procedure.

The Countess of Mar: Will the Minister explain why we need to speed up this plan? If BSE is suddenly found in sheep, the Minister can use the TSE Regulations 2002. Should not this matter be taken at a reasonably leisurely place, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord May? The Minister already has the necessary powers to deal with an emergency. Why does he need these extra powers?
	Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that this amendment should have come right at the beginning, immediately before line 35, under the heading "Sheep genotypes", which would have made it clear that it referred to the proposed national scrapie plan.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I did not provide the order of amendments. I would have preferred it to be in a different position.

Baroness Byford: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, the Minister said that it was difficult to give a time at which the scheme may become mandatory. Perhaps I may put the question another way. Have the Government set themselves a target of, for example, 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 20 per cent scrapie-free flocks?

Lord Whitty: There are three different time dimensions. The present voluntary scrapie plan already has in it certain time benchmarks. If the take-up rate under the voluntary plan continues at its present rate, 50 per cent of the rams in the national flock should be scrapie free in 25 years' time. In our opinion, that rate of progress is too slow. It is slower than originally envisaged by the scrapie plan. The reason for having mandatory powers is to speed up the process and to reduce it significantly from 25 years. It would be unwise to have an absolute target date, but it is hoped that it will be significantly below that level.
	The reason that we need the instruments on the statute book immediately, even if they are not used immediately, is so that the industry and everyone involved can see that the Government and the leaders of the industry are determined that this plan will be carried out. We believe that that will speed up voluntary involvement with the scheme, because people will see that it will definitely be delivered. At the moment there is some doubt that it will be delivered. The earlier we make that clear, the better and faster the scheme will move. That is the degree of urgency.

Baroness Byford: I hesitate to press the Minister further. We have now moved from "targets" to "significantly". For a Government who believe in setting targets, I am surprised that the Minister is a little shy. I thought that the Government always tried for targets. But enough of reminiscing. If, by the time we come to Report, the Government have some idea of a set target plan, it would be immensely helpful, not only to this House but to the many people outside the House who will be affected by the decisions we make today.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Despite the criticisms, in some respects justified, of the drafting of my amendment, there is no statement that there will be a national scrapie plan. We have been talking piecemeal about different aspects of possible targets, and there will be more of that when we debate other amendments. Some of the animal health measures adopted in the middle of the last century occurred under schemes whereby disease was eliminated on a county-by-county basis. Plans of that kind are dynamic, they move forward, and times change.
	Only the principle of the national plan should perhaps be accepted. Whether it will become mandatory or remain voluntary is a matter that will evolve, as it did at other times, with the elimination of TB. Nevertheless, I am trying to probe the kind of strategy that is to be approved. It is implicit in everything we are discussing that there is a national sheep plan. We know about it. We should focus our attention on how it is to be carried out, on the priorities contained in it, on the most important aspects of it, and on whether it is to remain voluntary or become mandatory. I believe that we need a framework in which to discuss the gradual elimination of scrapie from our national sheep flock. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to point out that TB has not been eliminated. A few small pockets were left and, unfortunately, it is now rife all over the country.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: That is correct. I was considering the historical context, not the present situation. I am well aware of the huge problems with regard to TB. We all know that there are many reasons for those problems. I do not intend to refer to them now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 15, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) The Ministry must, at the same time, publish their reasons and the scientific evidence behind the making of the order."

The Duke of Montrose: In moving Amendment No. 19 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19A. Transparency is of crucial importance in the specification of sheep genotypes by the Minister. If the agricultural community is confident that there is a thoroughly researched and broad-ranging basis to the order, there is a greater chance that it will encourage co-operation and mutual understanding. For the same reason, I believe that any order made under this new section should be presented before Parliament.
	The Bill provides for the Minister to specify by order, and without process of consultation, which sheep may be susceptible to infection by TSEs or to become carriers. I hope that the Minister will assure us that an extremely thorough process of research and consultation will take place. I should like to see that on the face of the Bill.
	The Minister is concerned about speed. I was a little surprised to hear him say that he was worried about the speed at which sheep breed. We are not here dealing with mice or rabbits and, naturally, sheep reproduce only once a year but science can speed up that process. The Minister must have a bleak expectation of the time that the legal process and our legal profession is developing if it will require more than a year to gain participation from some of those who will need to comply. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: Amendment No. 19A requires an order subject to annulment, but that provision is already contained in new Section 36L. It states that such regulations under this part shall be
	"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
	On that basis, Amendment No. 19A is—to use my favourite word—otiose.

Lord Whitty: The Bill already provides for the sheep genotypes order to be subject to a negative resolution. That explanation probably disposes of the substance of Amendment No. 19A.
	Amendment No. 19 seems to reflect the concern about the robustness of the scientific basis on which we are proceeding and the need for consultation. Throughout we have said that any decision taken by the Minister must be reasonably based on the scientific information at the time—which, it is to be hoped, will improve over time. We already have a substantial amount of knowledge and a fair amount of breeding out of scrapie has already taken place in relation to particular breeds. Therefore, we have the scientific information and some of the practicalities at our disposal.
	However, before making an order we will need to base our decisions on the science and on a process of consultation. Members of the Committee can take my assurance now and at various points in our discussions that that will be so and is implied by the general duty to take reasonable decisions. I do not therefore believe that at every point we need to spell out the fact that this is subject to the best scientific opinion and to widespread consultation. We believe that the order-making process will ensure that.

The Countess of Mar: I do not oppose what the Minister has said. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke of the precautionary principle and no one appreciates more than I do what a horrible disease CJD is. The fact that it hits young people is very emotionally stirring. However, we must also remember that farmers breed their sheep over many years. Some of them would be extremely distressed to lose their sheep—and we know about farmers' suicide rates. We must carry out a risk assessment before deciding on how extreme we shall be on removing farmers' livelihoods.
	I am exercising the precautionary principle in another direction and believe that the matter should be viewed from both sides. I recognise that CJD is a horrible disease, but there is insufficient scientific evidence to show that BSE is in sheep or is linked to human CJD. We need to look at both sides of the picture.

The Duke of Montrose: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. He was convincing in his assertion on how he will take in all the scientific evidence and exercise his judgment. The purpose which lies behind Amendment No. 19 is that when publishing the statutory instrument he should publish the scientific reasons behind the making of the order as it applies to the matters contained in the instrument.
	I am not satisfied with the answer that the Minister has given and I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 74.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 19A not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 15, line 7, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 15, line 12, at end insert "provided that the device can be administered or attached without causing pain to the animal and without any danger of its becoming detached other than by deliberate removal"

Lord Plumb: The age of electronic identification can mean many things. The method is more difficult to apply to sheep than to other animals. The identification is implanted in the form of a bolus. That is the only way at present that we can achieve electronic identification.
	However, the Bill has to guard against the cheapest form of identification and must openly consider, therefore, the animal's welfare. The amendment attempts to do so. It is vitally important that any electronic identification device is effective and as tamper proof as possible. It is for that reason that we have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Jopling: We have been somewhat remiss in not drawing attention during debate to the first appearance on the Front Bench of my noble friend Lord Plumb. If Members of the Committee will allow me to do so, I remember being, I think, the youngest member of the National Farmers Union Council many years ago when the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was one of the gods. He later became President of the National Farmers Union and President of the European Parliament. It is a great reflection on his abilities that he should add to his CV, "Front Bench spokesman"—occasional it may be—"in the House of Lords". I should not like this moment to pass without expressing congratulations to him. I am sure they will be reflected throughout the Chamber.
	Some years ago I was a director of a company—I no longer am and have no interest in it—which was involved with electronic tagging. It is all very well stating in the Bill,
	"attach to it an electronic identification device".
	Often that is not enough. There has to be some means of interpreting what is in the tag.
	Hand-held devices are available on the market for reading the information held in the tag. Crushes are available which sheep and cattle can pass through. Again, they are equipped to identify the information stored in the device. But the equipment is fairly expensive. Can the Minister say whether this will involve a large capital outlay which farmers will have to face in order to fulfil their half of the job of tagging the animal?
	As I recall, another problem could arise. Difficulties can be encountered when implanting tags under the skin. I understand that the tag can move around the body of the animal. That was certainly the case when I had some knowledge of these matters some years ago, but I may be out of date.
	It would be helpful if the noble Baroness—from watching the body language on the Front Bench, I have the impression that the noble Baroness is the Minister who is to reply—could set out the details with regard to the capital outlay for the electronic reading devices and what is the position with regard to implanted tags possibly moving around in the body.
	The alternative is to use an external device such as an ear-tag on the animal. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to explain exactly what is involved in these matters.

The Countess of Mar: I have explained that we are members of the national scrapie plan. The current procedure involves shooting a bolus into the stomach of the sheep, which remains in place for the rest of the animal's life. It is provided free of charge by DEFRA. I should like to know whether the tagging will continue to be provided free of charge. Individual farmers do not need the reading devices because only DEFRA is interested in the information.
	I believe that it is set out in the Bill that DEFRA will continue to bear the cost of tagging. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could confirm that.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I, too, should like to take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, to his role—not permanent but for an occasional guest performance—on the Opposition Front Bench. Given the noble Lord's knowledge and background, I must admit that I shall welcome him even more when my noble friend replies than when I must do so personally. I am sure that he will understand that.
	The noble Countess, Lady Mar, was right. She answered the point with regard to genotype identification by saying that the Government meet the capital outlay. On the further point, we recognise the concerns about causing distress to animals. We would not want to cause any unnecessary pain or suffering. However, it can be difficult to identify pain in an animal and thus it is a very subjective term to use in legislation. I can assure noble Lords, however, that we recognise the concerns and want to continue to put the welfare of sheep as a matter of paramount importance to inspectors as they apply the electronic identification devices.
	I hope that those explanations will reassure the noble Lord. The Government are paying for the devices and, as the noble Countess, pointed out, they remain in place for life. The reading is carried out as a part of the project and therefore the identification devices are not a problem for farmers.

Lord Carter: For the information of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I believe that the bolus is inserted into the rumen reticulum. Can she confirm for the Committee that the device will not enter the omasum or the abomasum? She may need to write to me on that point.

Lord Lucas: If the noble Baroness were to write to the noble Lord on that point, it should be on vellum.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is wrong. I should have thought that sausage skin would have sufficed.
	The bolus used for the national scrapie plan is a ceramic tube encasing a transponder which emits a signal containing a unique ID number. We believe this process was initiated because of concerns raised in another place that, as my noble friend Lord Carter sought to point out—

Lord Carter: I thank my noble friend. I am more concerned with where the device is implanted.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am about to tell my noble friend. The bolus is inserted orally into the sheep's stomach. It was chosen in preference to tags or implants because it enables a more secure audit trail. Momentary discomfort may be felt while the device is swallowed. However, as far as I am aware, there is no problem with regard to the device lodging anywhere other than in the rumen reticulum. Were we to learn of boluses lodging in other parts of the complex gastronomic system of the sheep, I would write to my noble friend.

The Countess of Mar: Is the noble Baroness aware that problems have been encountered with the boluses and that some sheep have had to be put down? Occasionally the bolus has not settled in the right place or it has become stuck in the animal's throat. Alternatively, the bolus has been found to be too big for some of the smaller breeds of sheep.
	It should be stressed that inspectors using the equipment to administer the boluses should be highly skilled. That is extremely important. Certainly when dealing with pedigree flocks, some very expensive sheep have had to be put down.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that those problems were encountered in the early stages of the project when the issue arose with regard to very young animals. I believe that the problem has been resolved.
	We recognise the paramount importance of good training for the inspectors involved in the project.

Lord Plumb: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for her expert knowledge and information on this matter, as well as her response to the first-class question put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, put the point clearly when she pointed out that the bolus is implanted in the stomach. That is good enough for me.
	Nevertheless, it is clear that a technique must be followed. The amendment seeks to ensure that the proper procedures are in place. It has been suggested that if the electronic device being placed in sheep was any stronger, then it might affect aeroplanes flying overhead. One has to be a little careful.
	I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. I thank also my noble friend Lord Jopling for his comments. He suggested that years and years ago I might have been described as one of the gods. To sit on the Front Bench in the House of Lords and to be described as one of the gods of years ago puts me, on this occasion, in a remarkable position.
	Again, I thank the noble Baroness for her clear response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.39 p.m..

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Prison Visitors' Centres

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on prison visitors' centres and their role in the resettlement of prisoners in society after release.
	My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of the role of visitors' centres at our prisons and to highlight what I believe to be a key aspect of our planning and provision for prisoners and their families. This aspect of penal policy may seem to some a peripheral concern in comparison with the pressing, big issues of our rising crime rate, our exploding prison population and the needs of victims of crime—to name but a few. But unless we focus more seriously on the role of prisoners' families, recognise their potential and make a real commitment to proper provision for them, I believe that we shall never crack the central problem, which is the high and unacceptable rate of reoffending.
	The admirable Director-General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, is on record as saying:
	"I cannot overemphasise the important role that families play in helping to achieve effective rehabilitation and reducing re-offending . . . I firmly believe that we should do as much as possible to sustain family relationships at what for many will be an especially traumatic time in their lives".
	In its brief reference to families, the recent government White Paper acknowledges importantly that,
	"prisoners are 6 times less likely to re-offend if contact with their families is maintained".
	The crucial role for visitors centres at the frontline of any provision seems incontrovertible. They provide a neutral setting where issues relating to both families and prisoners can be addressed at the very interface between inside and outside. Families can talk, and help and advice relating to both family and prisoner can be given. As the recent excellent review of visitor centres Just Visiting? found, the experience of visiting is made infinitely easier and less stressful, and is the most effective way of encouraging visits when there is a centre at a prison.
	Further, when working relationships with prison staff are forged, prisoners' issues can be better understood and perceptions and understanding of family issues improved. As prison staff have little or no training in dealing with the needs of families, this is invaluable. At Holloway prison, for example, the manager of the centre now has monthly meetings with prison staff, who are also welcome as colleagues in the centre; and everyone benefits.
	I must declare an interest in that I was involved in setting up the very first visitors' centre at Pentonville prison 30 years ago—prompted by the sight of straggly queues of women and children in the Caledonian Road near where I lived, waiting in all weathers for the moment when the next shift of prison officers would come on and let them in to wait for their visits. I did not know then that they could come from as far away as Southend or even Scotland; that there was a tiny little room that served as a waiting room; and that, in those days, the wait could sometimes take hours.
	Happily, however, there are now some 75 centres throughout the country, though estimates vary according to what you define a visitors' centre to be. It is a development that I greatly welcome. However, this still leaves around 82 prisons without any such facilities. Currently, they are of widely differing kinds with widely different standards of provision. This now needs to be looked at seriously if the importance of the family and visits is truly acknowledged. They range from state of the art provision with paid staff, supported by the prison, to the situation at Eastwood Park—a women's prison—as described by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, where the waiting room is the bus shelter and the lavatory is the hedge. That is intolerable.
	Worryingly, in the past five years the number of families visiting prisons has actually dropped by about a third. The reasons are varied and unclear, but today it can sometimes take days to find which prison the prisoner is in; booking a visit can take literally hours, or even days, of persistence to achieve, which is just too much for some people; the journey can involve very long distances—around 26,000 prisoners are over 50 miles away from home and 5,000 over 150 miles; there is invariably a long wait before getting in to a visit, which is a basic reason for the necessity of a visitors' centre; and the business of getting in to a prison involves a variety of screening processes, physical searching, and so on, which includes children. After all this, a visit may or may not go well. Finally, there is the return journey, probably with children in tow.
	Of course, the pressure of numbers on the Prison Service today and the need to do everything possible to prevent drugs coming in during visits explain some of these difficulties for the visitor. But perhaps noble Lords should try to imagine going through this process themselves. It then becomes easier to understand why families, who are so crucial to bringing down re-offending rates, sometimes cannot sustain these vital links. I should add that 43 per cent of sentenced prisoners lose contact with their families after entering prison. That is a tragedy.
	Families are not prisoners, but the stigma, the hardship and the difficulties often endured make it no wonder that they are described as the "forgotten victims" of imprisonment. Visitors' centres can mitigate the worst of these experiences. With good resources and manpower, they do much to ease both the visitors' burden and also facilitate things for the prison at the same time. There is a brief but enlightened chapter on families in this month's Social Exclusion Unit report on reoffending, but there were no recommendations at the end of the report relating to families.
	Lastly, there are the children: tens of thousands are affected each year by having a parent in prison. It does not take much imagination to realise what damage such separation does, particularly as far as concerns women prisoners where 80 per cent are being separated from their children for the first time. In a most telling report on the effect of a parent's imprisonment on teenagers, the young people spoke of the fear and anxiety that they experienced—silently—for, as the report is entitled, No-one ever asked me. Most poignantly, the experience was likened to a bereavement. Yet, it is also well established that the chances of a young person becoming involved in the criminal justice system are greatly increased if a parent has been to prison. This is a social welfare imperative, as well as a penal reform issue.
	I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that families are a priority in policies addressing reoffending. If so, can the noble and learned Lord say whether capital funding will be available to set up visitors' centres where none exist? Will they be properly resourced and managed? Will the Prison Service accept the cost of running them? Will the role of families in prisoner planning be recognised by, for example, identifying and involving the family member who is a positive force? Will the role of visitors' centres in facilitating links be developed? Will the staffing/organisational issues, which include the difficulties that I mentioned of booking visits, the huge distances that people have to travel and the unpleasantness of much of the process of visiting, be addressed? Finally, will the noble and learned Lord undertake to develop prisoner officer training, to include an understanding of how crucial the role of the family is in work with the prisoner, and a recognition of the fact that a duty of care to the family as well as to the prisoner is necessary?
	The new Chief Inspector of Prisons has said that prisons need to have visitors' centres. She is right. Families need them, prisoners need them, prison staff need them; and, because families are the key to reducing reoffending rates, we all need them. This is not a peripheral issue, it is centrally important.

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, perhaps I may be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on drawing attention to one of the less visible, but, nevertheless, highly relevant, aspects of the current crisis in the penal system. If anyone regards the reference to "crisis" as too alarmist an exaggeration, perhaps I may refer to two statistics. As recently as 5th July 2002, which is less than three weeks ago, the certified normal accommodation of the prison estate—known as the CNA—was 64,232 inmates. Yet the total prison population was 71,360.
	One of the many harmful consequences of escalation on this scale is to reduce access for visits by prisoners' relatives or partners. We should always remember that regulated access by visitors is an entitlement; it is not a discretionary facility. Yet one statistic stands out: it is the noticeable decline in the overall number of visits at a time when the prison population is rapidly increasing. As a result, only two-thirds of prisoners in local prisons and just over half in training prisons are able to exercise their entitlement of two visits per month. A principal cause is the very long distances that visitors often have to travel. It has been estimated by the Prison Service that about 5,000 inmates are now located in establishments more than 150 miles away from their home. That is a significant statistic.
	However, it is not the full story. Where there are dedicated visitors' centres, in which families wait to be admitted to make their visit, the standards vary considerably. Recent research indicates that not all of them—it would be remarkable if it were all of them—are fulfilling their potential.
	I shall end on a more positive note. There is from time to time a tide of events in penal reform. After a lengthy and initially discouraging campaign, a shift can occur. Attitudes change, priorities alter, and money and resources—hitherto denied—are found, although seldom enough. A relevant example, of which some noble Lords participating in this debate will be aware, involves the changes for improved facilities for women in prison, following Professor Dorothy Wedderburn's profoundly significant report a year or more ago.
	Despite all the practical difficulties currently facing the Prison Service, I believe that this could be another such moment. The hour may be coming to concentrate attention on visitors' centres in prisons. It may seem a small step but it will be a symbolic one. If it does come, much of the credit will belong to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, whom we have heard so eloquently today, and her supporters.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for introducing this major issue. I should declare an interest at the outset, although it is not direct and it is certainly not financial; indeed, the reverse. My wife is a trustee of a charity, Kids VIP, the sole purpose of which is to provide supervised play areas in visitors' centres in prisons. Most of what I will say is derived from what it has produced for me, and I am grateful to it.
	The noble Baroness rightly said that prisoners are very much less likely to re-offend on release if they have a stable family home to which to return. In that sense, families should be encouraged to be a resource rather than a problem for prisoners. Families need to show that, although they have difficulties in their own community, they are onside. They therefore need to have a place where they can get their act together and somewhere to wait and smarten up before they see the prisoner in question, because that relationship is vital. They will be under pressure in their own community. They and the prisoner need support and the only way to provide that is through an effective visitors' centre.
	Where are we now? A good practice guide for visitors' centres was produced in 1998 but it contained nothing to progress implementation. Central and Yorkshire areas of the Prison Service piloted the visits charter in 1999, which stated that all prisons should have visitors' centres. In spring of this year, a report was produced by the Federation of Prisoners Families Support Groups jointly with the Prison Reform Trust with various recommendations for visitors' centres including visitors' centres at each prison and quality standards at each prison.
	According to the 2000 Prison Service review report, there are only 90 prisons out of 130 in England and Wales with visitors' centres. Provision is very patchy. Some of them provide advice, support and refreshment in good surroundings but many others are merely huts and sometimes do not even have toilets. Sometimes, they merely have checking-in facilities. That does not seem to be enough.
	There are all sorts of reasons why visitors' centres should be encouraged. I hope that my noble and learned friend will address the point.
	The time has come for a sensible review—a statutory review—of what visitors' centres are for. We should encourage visitors' centres not only in terms of a relationship between families and prisoners but as a positive resource to ensure that re-offending is less than it otherwise would be.
	I briefly looked at the recent White Paper, Justice for All. Referring to the "What Works" approach, I note that paragraph 6.20 states that there will be, "specific structured schemes"—whatever that means—
	"designed to address the factors that give rise to offending, such as thinking".
	I am not sure that thinking—perhaps my noble and learned friend will advise me—is a matter of offence. If it is, I propose that he should think very hard about how we can encourage visitors' centres and ensure that the balance is right for prisoners and offenders to be resettled in the proper conditions when they are released from prison.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, this debate is of great personal importance and enormous significance to the Prison Service. It is of great personal importance because it is harrowing for a family, when visiting a prisoner, to have to wait in depressing surroundings.
	The distances that some families have to travel are huge. Two examples illustrate the point. First, a young man at Feltham young offender institution was recently transferred to Castington on the Scottish border. Secondly, the women's prison outside Bristol, Eastwood Park, to which the noble Baroness referred, has a catchment area that extends as far as Land's End and has taken women from Cornwall in the last few months. Those are perhaps extreme examples but it is common for families to travel 50 miles or more to see a member of their family in prison. They arrive, often with young children and often exhausted, and then face the stress of meeting their partner, son, or father and finding the right supportive words that will sustain the relationship. A good visitors' centre makes a huge difference.
	It is obvious that the system is not working. The number of visits per prisoner has been dropping in recent years. Of course, as the number imprisoned grows—we have already heard the figures—the absolute number of visitors increases. However, if one asks how many visits a prisoner will get a year, the number has fallen away in recent years. That is confirmed by the Prison Reform Trust and other bodies. The reason is obvious. Faced with the need to make efficiency savings each year, prisons are increasingly finding it hard to staff such facilities as visitors' phone lines. There are also problems recruiting prison officers in the South East, given the cost of housing. In several major London prisons recently, there have been huge shortfalls in the number of staff manning phone lines. Perhaps one or two do so when there should be half a dozen. That means that when families ring up they continually get the engaged tone. It should be possible to re-book a visit for a month's time when the current visit is over. In many cases that is impossible. A consistent and predictable service is needed.
	These facts can be corroborated by prison charities working in prisons. The Church works alongside many of them. The recent social exclusion report states at page 14:
	"There are still lots of prisons where families have to wait in the rain outside the gate".
	On the same page, it continues:
	"The attitude of staff conducting visits at prisons has often been criticised as being unsympathetic and characterised mainly by suspicion".
	Of course prison officers must prevent drugs being smuggled into prison but, as has been said already, families are not criminals.
	This recent official government document confirms the criticisms made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in her recent reports on Exeter and Dartmoor prisons. Neither has remotely adequate visitors' centres, yet Dartmoor is very isolated and Exeter, which acts as a local prison for those remanded and convicted, is severely overcrowded.
	Excellent work is being done in prisons by Church-based charities such as the Mothers' Union and the Union of Catholic Mothers. They help run visitors' centres, while the charity PACT, formed this year from a number of other charities, including the Roman Catholic Bourne Trust, has sole responsibility for running such centres in Holloway, Pentonville, Woodhill, Belmarsh and Wormwood Scrubs. They do a superb job, but on few resources.
	It is important for the Prison Service to sort out its relationship with voluntary charities and to provide adequate funding for this activity so that there is a centre for every prison, properly funded. Charitable funding has its limits. The service has tried hard to improve its relationships with the voluntary sector. I welcome that, but there is still a very long way to go.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on initiating the debate. She is well known as a pioneer of visitors' centres. She has been a heroic defender of them for more than 30 years and prisoners' families owe her a great deal.
	The debate is very important because it reminds us of one of the consequences of our high imprisonment level, now the highest in western Europe. It is not only the prisoners but large numbers of families who are affected. Visitors' centres are the only parts of the prison organisation that are geared to their problems and their experiences.
	The support that visitors' centres give is greatly needed because, by European standards, our visitors do not do very well. I am not speaking about private family visits—sometimes called conjugal visits—which are available to prisoners and their families in Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Russia, the Netherlands, Canada and some states of the United States, but simply about visitors' entitlements to see their imprisoned family member, an entitlement which is meagre when compared to other countries. The basic entitlement for visits is one visit every two weeks, whereas in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Spain it is at least twice that.
	But prisoners' visitors also suffer in other ways. These can vary from the time it takes to book a visit—someone on a board of visitors informed me that the process can take two days, even in a good caring prison—to the humiliations they can suffer when they visit, as so graphically described by the chief inspector in her report on Eastwood Park.
	Visitors are also victims of something called the "incentives and earned privileges scheme", which applies in every prison. It is a kind of grading of all prisoners according to an assessment of their behaviour and level of co-operation. Prisoners are graded into three levels—basic, standard and enhanced—and what they get depends on their level. This affects not only whether they may have access to a television and other benefits; it also affects the number of visits they can have from their families. At one prison I know, families can visit so-called "standard" prisoners twice a month. They can visit "enhanced" prisoners five times a month.
	When a prisoner is moved, as often happens at the moment because of the crisis of numbers and the search for beds for the growing prison population, the prisoner is put back on "standard" level at the new prison and the family is allowed only two visits—not because the prisoner has done anything wrong but because the prisoner has been moved. It can take three months before the new prison establishes that the prisoner is worthy to be deemed "enhanced". The family, which has already had to endure all the problems we have heard about, discovers that they have lost three visits a month through no fault of the prisoner.
	Can the Minister confirm that this happens to prisoners' families? If it does, will he reflect on what this shows about the priority that the Prison Service is able to give to relationships between prisoners and their families? Can he also revisit the issue of the inclusion of visits in the grading scheme at all and consider whether it is appropriate that prisoners' families should suffer in this way?

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for her 30 years of campaigning in the field of prison visitors' centres. We all have a great deal to gain from prisoners maintaining strong relationships with their families.
	I have an interest to declare. I am very involved with a charity called Safe Ground, which works in prisons producing parenting courses for use in prisons. Obviously visitors' centres are an important part of its work. Prisoners who are encouraged to make better parents and to make better contact with their families need better facilities in which to do so.
	Their spouses are often extremely stressed anyway from the experience of having their other halves in prison. They often find themselves in facilities which are basic in the extreme. As has been said, often there are no facilities and prisoners' wives, girlfriends and families have to wait in the rain. This is not conducive either to a successful visit or, more importantly, to the kind of liaison there should be between those who are looking after the prisoner's family and those who are looking after the prisoner.
	I phoned a few prisons this morning to chat to the people operating the visitors' centres. In the first two I tried, the people on the prisons' switchboards did not know the number of the visitors' centres. I got through to the third one, an excellent prison called Moorlands, which other noble Lords may know, which has an excellent visitors' centre.
	It is clear that when the system is operating well there is a great deal of active co-operation between the visitors' centre and the prison. Problems which come out in discussions in the visitors' centre are passed on to the prison officers in charge of the prisoner concerned and visits are arranged through the prison visitors' centre. There is a great deal of active co-operation which helps to keep the family unit together. That in turn helps in the management of the prisoners and dealing with the problems that they see happening outside but cannot touch because they are stuck away in prison.
	If there was more of this kind of activity, as the noble Baroness said, we would find ourselves with a lower rate of re-offending, which is supposed to be one of the objectives of the Prison Service. But often that seems to get lost in the sheer problems associated with managing the Prison Service and the astonishing practice of shuffling prisoners around the place and, even more astonishing, shuffling governors around the place at an enormous rate. That certainly does not allow for an efficient service which is focused on making the best use of the time that prisoners have in prison to give them the best possible chance of not re-offending. It is a difficult job, but that should be the objective of the Prison Service. Providing visitors' centres and that kind of facility to help keep families together is one of the key things that we need to do.
	Families are the prisoners' anchors in the community. Looking after their family—many prisoners have only half a generation of family; they know their mother but they do not know their father—is of great importance. Most prisoners appreciate the joys of being a parent and having a relationship with a child. There is a great deal there that can be built on if it is allowed to continue and flourish in prison.
	If we train prison officers in how to support prisoners' families—as we should—we ought to do the same for them. They have a very hard life and often work in very difficult circumstances. They do not have an easy time in terms of their own family relationships or their own lives. If we support the families of prisoners, we have a duty to offer prison officers the same kind of support. If they have happy and fulfilled family lives, they will find it much easier to support, encourage and create the same for the prisoners in their care.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I strongly support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about supporting those who often work with very difficult adults and young people. I could not agree more. I thank the noble Baroness for allowing us the opportunity for this timely debate.
	Is the Minister considering making available as an amenity in visitors' centres the parenting courses that are widely provided to prisoners and young offenders? They would provide a means to attract visitors, and would represent effective early intervention for families who may be vulnerable.
	The recent report by the Youth Justice Board, Building on Success, shows how effective parenting orders have been in reducing re-offending. It has been reduced by one-third as a result of such courses. Furthermore, 90 per cent of the parents involved have said that they would recommend their course to others. They have been eager to learn how to manage their difficult child or children. That reduction has been achieved at little cost to the taxpayer.
	Her Majesty's Government have recognised the importance of early intervention to support vulnerable families. They have devoted much funding and ministerial attention to their Sure Start programme, which seeks to support the most vulnerable families in the time leading up to the birth of a child and in the following three years. The Minister has responsibilities in this area himself.
	Given the vulnerability of some prisoners' families, especially the young women who are partners of young offenders, does it not make clear good sense to extend the offer of parenting classes and advice to them as they make use of visitors' centres? Most especially, teenage mothers—some of whom are likely to have come through the care system, as have their partners in young offender institutions—might benefit from such help and advice and might welcome it. Such intervention could be a factor in breaking the cycle of deprivation between generations.
	Visitors' centres could be used also to provide information on parenting generally. They could provide leaflets and pamphlets on the availability of parenting classes for visitors in their home locality. Taster courses could be provided. An incentive such as a gift for a child or a voucher for a shopping centre might be offered to those who attend. He or she could then be put in touch with his or her local parenting courses. The Parenting Education and Support Forum could supply details of its national network of advisers. I have witnessed the forum's work and have been very impressed by it.
	I am most interested to know what is being done along the lines I have set out and what plans the Minister may have to take this kind of work further. I did not warn the Minister about this request for information, so I should be grateful if he would write to me if he has information to offer.
	We are always concerned that families at risk, particularly vulnerable families, should receive the help they require to provide for their children. This may be one opportunity for important early intervention.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Linklater for introducing this important debate. Those of us who know her, know of her concern about criminal justice matters. This is one of the many initiatives on which we shall no doubt hear much more from my noble friend.
	I need do no more than invite the Government and the Minister to cast an eye over the report produced by the Government, Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. I draw the Minister's attention to Chapter 15. If he has read it, we shall obviously receive an answer to the recommendation. If he has not, I suggest that it makes good bedtime reading in relation to families. Perhaps I may quote from the report:
	"Prisoners' families, including children, often experience increased financial, emotional and health problems when a family member is imprisoned. Very little help is available to deal with these problems. It is estimated that 125,000 children have a parent in prison, adding to the inter-generational effects of custody".
	That is the finding of the Government's own research.
	What is the Government's recommendation? Even where a visit is possible, the conditions and amenities available are also frequently insufficient, despite the best efforts of some prisons. It is important for the Government to spell out clearly their intentions in relation to a number of issues identified by noble Lords.
	The essential service that visitors' centres provide is to make visits less stressful. Often, visitors have travelled a long distance on public transport to a distant prison, perhaps in a remote rural location, with small children and baby buggies in tow. They then face intrusive searching and security procedures before spending a relatively short time with their imprisoned partner or relative, in a visiting room which may be overcrowded and noisy. In these circumstances, is it any surprise that visits can often be a fraught and unsatisfactory experience?
	Visitors' centres increase the chances that the visits will go well. They do this by providing a number of facilities. They are a comfortable and welcoming place for visitors to wait before their visit—in contrast to those prisons where visitors have to stand in a long queue outside the main prison gate in all weathers. They provide facilities such as toilets, refreshments, baby changing areas and play facilities for children, which can help visitors to freshen up and calm down before a visit. Staff can give help, information and support on a wide range of issues, from factual information on prison procedures to support for distressed visitors and help in sorting out problems by taking them up with the prison authorities. They can also provide access to other specialists such as drugs workers and mental health workers. All this help and information can be supplied to families.
	Yet, according to an oral Answer by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on 7th March, 77 out of 123 male prisons—63 per cent—have visitors' centres. So nearly 40 per cent do not. Even more disturbing is the fact that only eight out of 14 female prisons, or 57 per cent, have visitors' centres—which means that 43 per cent do not.
	Where prisons have visitors' centres, these vary from being little more than waiting areas to fully staffed centres providing information, support and advocacy for visitors. Centres which are run by voluntary agencies usually provide a wider range of help and support than those run by prison staff. While visitors' centres receive some funding from the prison, the level varies from nil to £48,000 a year.
	In making visits less traumatic, visitors' centres not only provide a much-needed humanitarian service; they also make a real contribution to the reduction in crime. I hope that the Minister will take into account the comments that have been made and that he will be positive enough to indicate the type of resources that are required to help ultimately in crime prevention in this country.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for giving us the opportunity for this short debate. I pay tribute to her work and to all those, especially the volunteers, who work in prison visitors' centres.
	Prison sentences can serve three purposes: securing public safety; punishment; and rehabilitation. If we do not encourage rehabilitation, society fails when some of its members and their families become trapped in a cycle of reoffending. The Social Exclusion Unit report, referred to by several noble Lords, found that released prisoners are responsible for at least 18 per cent of recorded crime. That costs us all about £11 billion a year.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, is right to highlight the value of the role of prison visitors' centres in the resettlement of prisoners after release. Other factors can play a valuable role. We shall need to debate them when parliamentary time is made available. I have in mind the interesting Home Office report published this month, Breaking the Circle: a Report of the Review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. It concludes that employment can reduce re-offending by between a third and a half.
	The Government's White Paper, Justice for All, published last week, recognises that,
	"Prison can break up families, impede resettlement and place children at risk of an intergenerational cycle of crime: 43 per cent of sentenced prisoners and 48 per cent of remand prisoners say they have lost contact with their families since entering prison. 125,000 children are affected by the imprisonment of a parent each year".
	My noble friend Lord Windlesham was right to refer to the crisis in the penal system. The prison population is at an all-time high and it is alarming that the number of visitors has declined significantly over the past five years. Factors contributing to the decrease are that around 26,000 prisoners are held over 50 miles from their committal court town—noble Lords have given details of the problems—and the difficulty of booking visits, as has been explained. There is significant stress and exhaustion associated with visiting prisons.
	As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, visitors' centres in prisons can help greatly in enabling families and prisoners to maintain vital links and relationships. They prepare visitors for what to expect and they support them after a difficult visit. Those are all valuable measures.
	The Prison Reform Trust conducted a review of prison visitors' centres in partnership with the Federation of Prisoners' Families Support Groups. It recommended that every prison should have a visitors' centre and that prisons should be located in areas that are readily accessible to visitors and at the least possible distance from prisoners' homes. That must be right.
	The findings of the research suggest that the contribution of visitors' centres, when backed up with sufficient and stable funding and support, is likely to be of great advantage to prisons as a whole and to the successful reintegration of prisoners into the community following release.
	I look forward to the Minister's response and in particular to the report that I hope he will give of the progress made by the Government since the commitment given by his noble friend Lord Rooker in this House on 7th March this year that they would consult the federation of support groups about the research findings.
	It is impossible to do justice to this important matter in four minutes. It is vital that we ensure that there is a long-term serious debate on how to get people out of the cycle of crime. It is important that we recognise now and in the future that prison visitors' centres play a valuable role in the resettlement of prisoners.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for obtaining this short debate. I also pay tribute to her for her work on visitors' centres and a range of other prison issues. It is right to mention that she drove the creation of the first visitors' centre—as she said all too modestly—in Pentonville 30 years ago. That starting point has made a real difference. Although, as she rightly said, there are debates about the figures, my advice is that there are currently 92 visitors' centres. There are a significant number of visitors' centres throughout the prison estate in this country, although we all agree that there are not enough.
	I start with some basic points on which we all agree. Prison Rule 4 requires that special attention is paid to the maintenance of a prisoner's relationship with his or her family and with agencies outside prison in order,
	"to best promote the interest of his family and his own social rehabilitation".
	The importance of maintaining family ties cannot be overstated. As a number of noble Lords have said, one of the purposes of prison must be to prevent reoffending. All the research shows that breaking family ties increases the chance of offending and the continuation of family ties promotes the chances of not reoffending. We should promote the continuation of those family ties not just because it is right but because it benefits society. We believe that that is important and is one of the roles of the Prison Service.
	Good family ties also help prisoners to cope better inside prison, help prepare them for release and are an important factor in helping them get a job when they get out. Prison staff are being encouraged to use families as a means of obtaining feedback about a prisoner, as prisoners are often more likely to confide in a member of their family or a friend rather than uniformed prison staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred to that when she said that visitors' centres are a way of promoting interaction between prison officers and families of prisoners in which issues about the prisoners can be much more easily discussed.
	I make it clear that the promotion of family ties is an important priority and it does good. Noble Lords have referred to the Social Exclusion Unit's report and to the White Paper published last week, Justice for All, which both make that point. The Government accept that. We also accept that visitors' centres are an important means of helping the Prison Service achieve that.
	Many noble Lords—though not all—will be fully aware of what visitors' centres can do. One of the most recent visitors' centres was opened last month at Walton Prison in Liverpool as the second phase in the construction of a purpose-built visits building. Previously the congregational point for visitors was little more than a bus shelter. The first phase and lower floor of the complex involved the construction of visits rooms for convicted and unconvicted prisoners. The contract to run the centre independently was put out to tender and awarded to a voluntary group—the partners of prisoners and families support group, known as POPS—which is in the process of recruiting managers, volunteers and childcare assistants. This Manchester-based organisation is well established and already provides a range of services, including advice, information and moral support for those with a member of their family in prison.
	The prison has provided POPS with £20,000 for the first few months of the contract to assist with the start-up costs. The eventual aim is that through the sales from the cafeteria the centre will be self-financing and any profit will be given back to the prison. The centre is open six days a week—it is closed on Wednesday—from 8.30 to 5.30; that is one hour before visits commence until one hour after they end. The centre provides a cafeteria, counter service and reception, the aim of which is to offer advice and information relating to financial reimbursement for visits, prison rules and the handling of property. There are plans for a secure pushchair park on the first floor. Once the childcare assistants have been appointed by POPS, both visit rooms—for convicted and unconvicted—will have children's supervised play areas.
	I have gone through that in detail to show the comparison with what was previously no more than a bus shelter. That conveys the important role that visitors' centres can play in seeking to keep prisoners relating to and connected with their families.
	That is the good side. There are plainly also real problems which noble Lords have drawn our attention to. Why do visitors' centres have such a low profile? Prison governors very much value the contribution that visitors' centres make to the treatment of visitors and the support and services that they offer. They are especially effective at offering a warm welcome to those to whom prison is an unfamiliar and daunting experience. The Prison Service is working to raise the profile of visits-related issues above and beyond those relating to security in the training of prison officers and more generally.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, asked whether training is provided. The answer is yes. The Prison Service offers as part of its component training for officers a component specifically on families. The training is provided by a voluntary sector organisation called KIDS VIP, an organisation with which the Prison Service works closely. We are grateful for its work in seeking to promote a better understanding among prison officers of these family issues.
	What is the position on funding for visitors' centres? The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was absolutely right to draw noble Lords' attention to the assurance given on 7th March by my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Rooker, who said that he would come back and inform the House of the position following completion of the spending review. Although the spending review was announced last week, I am not in a position to inform noble Lords of its implications for visitors' centres as those implications have not yet been fully worked out. Because of what was said by my noble friend Lord Rooker, I need to report to the House as soon as I can on that.
	As noble Lords will be aware—the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred to it, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Stern—our prisons are currently very full. Noble Lords will also be well aware that there are very considerable pressures on funding for prisons. However, I undertake to return to the House and inform noble Lords of the position on funding for visitors' centres.
	Noble Lords have quite rightly drawn attention to the number of prison visits. I am told that the number has remained moderately static. However, as all noble Lords have said, as the prison population increases, so the number of visits per prisoner decreases. Consequently, the number of visits per prisoner to promote family ties has been reducing. What are the reasons? A number of reasons have been given, including stricter controls on drug smuggling, which may have put off some visitors and removed their enthusiasm for visiting. Other reasons cited are visitors' dislike of passive drug dog searches and changes in visitors' disposable income and employment patterns. As more people find employment, more people encounter difficulty in obtaining time off from work to visit—particularly if, as noble Lords have said, thousands of visitors are 50 miles or more away and 5,000 prisoners are 150 miles away from their family home.
	As noble Lords have also indicated, the increase in telephone booking arrangements for visits has given rise to difficulties. It was the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I think, who said that people seeking to arrange a visit on the telephone sometimes have a long wait before the telephone is answered. We need to look at that, an inevitable consequence of the increase in the prison population. The last point is the simple one that population pressures lead to more prisoners being further from home and to greater pressures on visiting areas and booking lines. So the current position does not paint a happy picture. Research has set out the position. We have to look at ways of improving the situation.
	I should like to say what we are definitely doing in relation to visitors' centres. Various noble Lords referred to the excellent work done by Dr Nancy Loucks, on behalf of the Federation of Prisoners' Families Support Group and the Prison Reform Trust, in research published some time ago entitled Just Visiting? A Review of the Role of Prison Visitors' Centres. It is a very good piece of research which shows what visitors' centres can do. At its heart, the research recommends that there should be visitors' centres at every prison. As I said, however, I am not able to outline our position on that today as it depends on the disposition of funding.
	Nevertheless, we have taken some steps. First, a voluntary and community sector procurement strategy has been commissioned which will, among other things, assist governors to develop contractual relations with organisations that run visitors' centres. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester touched on the importance of establishing sensible relationships with organisations that provide the staff working in visitors' centres.
	Secondly, I can cite the development through the Prison Advice and Care Trust of an evaluation tool for visitors' centres. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, made clear, the centres vary in the service they provide. As we believe that consistency and quality of service are important, an evaluation tool is important.
	Finally, funding has been approved for the development of quality standards for visitors' centres, together with a project that will ensure the revision of current good practice guidelines for visitors' centres. We therefore recognise the importance of visitors' centres. We seek to facilitate their relations with the voluntary sector—which plays such an important role in this regard—and to ensure consistently high standards in visitors' centres.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, raised the important issue of the privilege scheme. She drew attention to the fact that, although prisoners can receive more visits as they progress through the three-tiered scheme, they could then be moved and, through no fault of their own, drop down to another level in the system which allows them fewer visits. I think that she was essentially asking, "Is that a sensible way of running such a scheme? Could you not, please, review it?" The answer is yes, we can. I am happy to say that we are undertaking a review of the scheme, as announced in the Criminal Justice White Paper. I am glad that I could bring her some good news on that.
	I cannot do justice to all the points raised in this short debate. However, I confirm three points. First, this is an important debate to which we should return. Secondly, promoting family ties is absolutely vital for the prisoners and for preventing re-offending. Thirdly, visitors' centres unquestionably promote the continuation of family ties. They are a thoroughly good idea which we should seek to spread.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.39 p.m.
	Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.36 to 8.39 p.m.]

Animal Health Bill

House again in Committee on Schedule 2.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 15, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) make provision with respect to the storage of samples for a period of not less than six months;"

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 22, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 42. Amendment No. 22 speaks for itself. We seek to register a period during which blood samples are required to be stored. I can find no indication in the Bill of the Government's thinking on the matter. I plucked the period of six months out of the air. The Minister may tell me that samples should be kept for two or three years. I am unsure about that matter. Obviously, it is in the interests of those who keep sheep that the latter are not tested over and over again if that can be avoided. I seek clarification on that matter.
	Amendment No. 42 tries to ensure that it will be possible to store sperm or eggs in a sperm or egg bank to retain precious breeding banks that could be used in the future. I refer also to their use for research purposes. In future particular breeds may or may not fall within a government mandatory slaughter programme. Earlier we discussed rare breeds and tried to persuade the Government to consider how rare breeds might be protected and allowed to exist even if only for research purposes. Those who have bred animals such as sheep, pigs or chickens are aware of the importance of cross-breeding.
	As I say, I have read the Bill carefully but can find no reference to this matter. I hope that the Minister will take my points on board. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support the two amendments. I believe that the storage of samples is particularly important. Were they to be destroyed, we should lose that inheritance possibly for ever. It is vital that a storage facility should exist. Obviously it has to be kept in a safe place which cannot be accessed except through special means and perhaps even permits.
	The need for egg and sperm banks is well known in the animal breeding world, as is the necessity to carry out research at some point under controlled conditions. Nothing could be worse than the prospect of losing such egg and sperm banks for all time. The greater the variety of genotypes that one has for research, the more valid one's research results will be. Such a variety could also open up new avenues.

Lord Whitty: As regards Amendment No. 42, as we discussed earlier, as currently drafted the Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to consider in advance the issuing of a restriction order where exceptional circumstances arise which would allow a sheep to be kept for breeding. We shall discuss what those exceptional circumstances might be. I assure the noble Baroness that we envisage that they could include such issues as research needs and the need to establish a semen, embryo or egg bank.
	As regards the storage of blood samples, we already keep a small proportion of each blood sample taken under the voluntary NSP in order to retest samples if there is any problem. It is probable that we shall replicate that procedure under the new arrangements. We would need to consider including that provision in the implementing regulations. I believe that that is the appropriate place to include that measure.
	I am not entirely sure about the merits of a six-month storage period as we may want to retest samples at any time. We shall need to take into account the level of sampling and the storage capacity we shall need and the access and resource costs involved in that. However, those issues should be contained in the implementing regulations.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for the two amendments. The Minister did not answer the question I asked. I suggested a six-month period out of sheer ignorance. However, I seek information from the Minister on the period during which samples are valid. What capacity does the department have to store the many samples that will need to be stored?

Lord Whitty: Under the present system we keep a small proportion of each blood sample. Whether we shall always need to do that would depend on the speed with which we develop the plan. If I have any further information, I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that response. Later we shall discuss whether an individual sheep sample is taken or a sample from a flock. I think that the Minister understands where my remarks are coming from. There are between 20 million and 40 million sheep in this country. That constitutes many samples. I refer to the practical implications of the matter. I seek guidance from the Minister on the Government's thinking on moving forward the agenda.
	I believe that the Government could experience difficulties due to their commitments in regard to Europe. I refer to the commitment to preserve biodiversity. I refer also to the primitive state of science in the field we are discussing. Certainly the matter will give cause for concern to those with rare breeds of pedigree stock. I refer again to the importance of cross-breeding in this regard. It is not just a matter of considering rare breeds per se. However, the matter will give cause for concern to those with rare breeds and particularly those hardest hit by foot and mouth disease such as the Hill Radnor and the Whitefaced Woodland. As regards many of those breeds semen will already be stored from sheep that are now dead and are not available for testing.
	If the Government accept Amendment No. 42, they may want to include rules on the scope and use of gametes. Some may fall under the provisions of new Section 36C(2) but if the original sheep have been subject to a restriction notice, there will need to be some derogation under new Section 36F(2) about what constitutes an offence. The Minister may not be able to respond to my points. The difficulty with the Bill is that we keep coming up with amendments to which the noble Lord understandably at present is not able to give full answers. However, I should be grateful if he would consider the matter before the next day of Committee proceedings.

Lord Whitty: I cannot answer that point but I shall look into it. However, I am now in a position to give a clearer answer to a previous question. Under the present system a small proportion of each blood sample is kept for two years.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for those comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 15, line 23, after "of" insert "individual"

The Duke of Montrose: Amendment No. 23 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 29 and 51. Here, we turn to the problem of the word "sheep" being both a collective and a singular noun. I am anxious to avoid the possibility of a whole flock or breed being condemned. As it stands, the Bill might not allow for the certification of individual sheep but it appears to allow for the restrictions on breeding to apply to an individual sheep. However, that should be made clear.
	Amendment No. 51 seeks to ensure that the appeal relates only to the individual sheep specified by the appellant. My amendments would ensure that, if a particular animal in a flock were less susceptible, it could be retained. That element of flexibility is not clear in the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We regard these as tidying-up amendments which make specific references to individual sheep. At this point, I am tempted to quote Thomas Love Peacock. He was a favourite poet of Dylan Thomas and the latter used to relate his poetry in public. One poem was along the lines of:
	"The mountain sheep are sweeter
	But the valley sheep are fatter.
	We therefore deemed it meeter
	To carry off the latter".
	I believe that there is something of a danger of that happening here.

The Countess of Mar: I endorse the amendment. Earlier we had a discussion about boluses in sheep, in which each sheep is identified as an individual animal. Therefore, we need to have individual certificates for sheep.

Lord Whitty: There is an individual identifier but, in that sense, the amendment would bring about a duplication. If literally interpreted, it would mean that we should have to issue an individual certificate for every sheep that was genotyped. Indeed, the noble Countess clarified that point. That seems to me to be over the top. It would certainly be very resource-intensive. We should need to have some flexibility so that we could issue a certificate to cover a number of sheep genotyped within a flock.
	As to the question of individual and collective sheep, the Bill already provides that the restriction on breeding applies in relation to "a" sheep. Therefore, the word "individual" inserted in that context would be superfluous, quite apart from its syntactical infelicity, if I may say so.
	Amendment No. 51 would also remove the flexibility of the current drafting, which would permit an appellant to alter, in the light of new or relevant information, the scope of the appeal to include other sheep covered by the same restriction notice. Therefore, it would somewhat limit the room for manoeuvre of the appellant. I do not believe that that was the intention behind the amendment, but it would be the effect.

Lord Jopling: If the Minister says that he wants to be flexible, surely, in practice, he wants to be able to cover a relatively small number, perhaps a larger number, the entire flock of sheep or a whole range of breeds of sheep. If he wants to be flexible, surely it would be better—I shall not try to draft on my feet—to change the Bill so that it recorded the genotypes of individual or specific numbers or total flocks of sheep. Surely it would be far more sensible to write that into the Bill so that it was clear that the Bill could refer to an individual, a limited number or the entire flock or breed, or whatever was required. I do not believe that anyone would argue with the Government's desire to be flexible over this matter. But surely it would be better to write that on to the face of the Bill.

The Countess of Mar: Surely the sheep in a flock will not all be of the same genotype. There will be different sheep with different genotypes. Each sheep will be identified by its bolus and we shall need to know what its genotype is. Perhaps there could be one certificate with the individual sheep on it. That may be the way to deal with the matter.

The Duke of Montrose: I want to return to this matter. My understanding of the way in which the Bill is developing is that the Government may well find that they have to apply a bolus to every sheep in the country. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether he intends that, if a flock has, say, a highly susceptible resistance level of more than 50 per cent, the remainder will not be tested. We should like to think that all the sheep will be tested and, as such, they will all be given a bolus.
	I wonder whether the Minister has given thought as to the cost of the testing. Compared with that, the cost of giving each sheep a certificate will be minimal. It could be arranged in the way that my noble friend Lord Jopling suggested, whereby sheep of a similar genotype could perhaps all be itemised on one certificate but the flock might have several certificates because they might have several genotypes. However, I believe that we need to consider how the testing will be carried out. We need to ensure that the Bill provides for the ability for sheep to be treated individually. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 15, line 23, at end insert—
	"(e) require the Minister to defray any costs of the keeper in respect of the identification and testing of any sheep"

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25. Here, we return to the question of covering costs. Whatever plans the Government have—obviously we support the eradication of scrapie—it adds a cost either to the Government or to the individual owner of the sheep.
	Surely not many people in this country are unaware of how little the average sheep farmer receives for his lambs. Few are ignorant of the frighteningly low incomes of those whose main activity is sheep rearing. Approximately 300 to 500 scrapie cases are reported each year. Some will be missed, and perhaps some animals die of other things before an outbreak of scrapie becomes obvious. Perhaps some sheep with the disease will be dispersed and therefore will not be identified.
	Nevertheless, if one was being over-ambitious, let us say that it is unlikely that there would be more than 5,000 cases in a year. Whether the number is 500, which is still high, or even 5,000, that is not a huge proportion of the total flock of adult sheep of between 24 million and 40 million. I believe that the cost of the testing and identification programme beyond that already called for by the order implementing EC directive 92/102 should be met by the Government.
	That is even more important when one considers the work of the Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales, which I quoted earlier. That body has warned that it estimates that the electronic tagging of sheep will cost in the region of £6,000 to £7,000 for a flock of 1,000 ewes. In addition, it believes that the cost of tagging small flocks will be proportionately more to the point where it may be cheaper to slaughter than to continue farming the animals.
	Because of a theoretical risk of scrapie or BSE—perhaps I should say "OSE", ovine spongiform encephalopathy—it would be appalling and the height of nonsense if wholesale slaughter were to result from the specification of yet another identification system paid for by the farmer. In Amendment No. 25, we are trying to ensure that the Minister will defray the costs of the keeper in respect of those expenses. Again, the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies has calculated the cost of electronic tagging, to which I have already referred.
	It has been pointed out that smaller farmers will be disproportionately affected. Rather than see some of our small sheep farmers go out of business—they are hugely important, particularly in hostile areas of the countryside where the wind, the rain and the general welfare of the climate is not conducive to anything else—we believe that the Government should meet the costs above a set amount. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 seek to do two different things. Amendment No. 24 asks the Government to defray all costs. Failing that, the Government should pay the costs above a set amount. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: Did I not hear the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, confirm that the Government would accept the costs for identifying the sheep? If that is the case, these amendments are unnecessary.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I believe that, in particular, electronic tagging will be expensive, as indeed my former employer, the Welsh Institute, has concluded. It is important that these costs are defrayed. They impose a considerable additional cost on sheep farmers. It is in the Government's interests to ensure that these sheep are tagged.

Lord Whitty: The noble Countess, Lady Mar, correctly heard my noble friend Lady Farrington. The initial sampling, the identification of the animal by the inspectors, to the insertion of the bolus device will be paid for by the Government. That is under the voluntary plan. Those costs will be met. I am not sure whether there were other costs implied by the amendment; for example, records and providing assistance to inspectors and so on. Those are fairly minimal costs. It is reasonable that the keepers should meet them. The big costs will be met by the Government under the scheme.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I am grateful also to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for raising the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, had earlier indicated that the Government would pick up the costs.
	I return to two matters. First, we have just had a debate on the amendment about sheep in the singular and sheep in the plural. I shall give the Minister a chance to say again whether this will happen to every sheep. The cost of every sheep rather than certain sheep out of flocks would have huge implications.
	Secondly, the scheme refers just to the voluntary scheme. If it becomes mandatory that the Government find out this information, they will need to take samples from individual sheep within the whole flock. The cost would be very different from that which is currently being borne by the voluntary scheme. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that issue for me.

Lord Whitty: The cost of testing and inserting the bolus relates to every individual sheep which is genotyped. That cost will be met by the Government. At what point it becomes universal for all sheep is some way down the line. But the cost is for every sheep that is genotyped. It is not a certificate or a provision that can be shifted from being a flock to the individual sheep. So far as concerns meeting the costs, there is no difference between the voluntary scheme and the mandatory scheme.

Baroness Byford: I must be getting a little confused. Currently, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is involved in the system dealing with scrapie in the national sheep flock. The Minister gave us the figures for the number of sheep farmers involved in that, which is small. If that is, say, 10 per cent of all the sheep in the UK and the Government are meeting the cost, if it becomes mandatory will the Government be carrying the cost for the 20 million sheep?

Lord Whitty: The plan depends on the selection of genotyping. For every sheep that is genotyped, the Government will meet the cost.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 15, line 25, leave out "it appears to the Minister" and insert "genotype testing has established"

The Duke of Montrose: In moving Amendment No. 26, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. First, I apologise that there is a typographical error in Amendment No. 26. Where it says,
	"has been established",
	it should read,
	"has established".
	"Has been" does not make sense.
	I have been unhappy with the wording in the clause. The Minister's actions under the clause are based on what we hope—and what the Minister has told us—is accurate, not to mention complex, scientific research. To juxtapose that with the phrase,
	"it appears to the Minister",
	is inappropriate. The amendment ensures that decisions are made on the basis of scientific evidence rather than how the facts "appear" to the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: On these Benches we support the thrust of the amendments, which are clearly designed to remove the words,
	"it appears to the Minister",
	which the noble Duke, Lord Montrose, said is vagueness taken to extreme, and to set out some principles on which decisions have to be made.
	Amendments Nos. 27 and 35, standing in my name and that of my noble friend, in the next group are based on the same principles that he puts forward. Perhaps his amendment is more specific than ours. I shall speak briefly to my amendments, which will save me moving them in the next group.
	The principles behind all these amendments are the same. We look forward to the Minister defending his vagueness and explaining why it is necessary. Perhaps we shall ask him to go away and reflect whether on an important matter such as this the legislation ought to be rather more specific in terms of what the Minister should be doing in making these decisions and how they should take place.
	We support the amendment put forward by the noble Duke, Lord Montrose. It has the same approach as our amendments in the next group. We shall not then move our next two amendments, which will save a little time at this time of the night.

The Countess of Mar: I have been dying to say that a phrase in the Bill is woolly, and I shall say so now. This phrase is woolly. We need it to be better defined, and I entirely support the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment.

Lord Whitty: There is a distinction between the judgment whether to impose restrictions and the objectivity of the test. The Bill as drafted already envisages the provision of evidence of a sheep's genotype; that will be objective. We have an established and validated test; that is not at all subjective. But the decision, on the basis of that objective evidence, whether and what sort of restrictions should be imposed will be a matter for ministerial judgment. We cannot tighten that; we may find a better form of wording, but we cannot eliminate discretion from whether—and, if so, in what form—restrictions should be imposed on the basis of objective evidence.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: We are back in the same territory that we covered when debating Amendment No. 12. The Minister was then generous and said, "Yes, of course I will have proper evidence. I would not just make up my mind this way or the other". All of the amendments are trying to pin down the Government to specific and definite evidence. It is strange that the Government are resisting that.
	I do not see why the Minister minds including these and related amendments which simply spell out that there must be proper evidence. The impression of subjectivity may not be what was intended but is what is given by the extremely loose language. I hope that the Minister will get the message that what we want is highly specific reference to evidence. That will then give people a sense that the Bill is one that they want to support—there is much good will towards it in principle. We do not want loopholes that can be exploited.

The Duke of Montrose: I am most grateful to those who have supported our amendment: the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. We want an assurance from the Minister that he will go away to reconsider the matter. We all consider that it is relevant to gaining the confidence of the farming and shepherding community, allowing them to see that everything has been properly thought out and fits in its place. In the meantime, although we want to return to it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 [Scrapie]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 15, line 25, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Lord Greaves: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 15, line 26, at end insert—
	"(1A) The Minister in exercising his powers under this section shall pay due regard to the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity."

Lord Greaves: I rise to move Amendment No. 30 and to speak to Amendment No. 31, which is in the same group and in the name of my noble friend and myself. The two amendments are an attempt to pin down in the Bill some of the commitments to biodiversity and the preservation of rare and traditional breeds that may otherwise be affected by the schedule's provisions.
	Subject, as usual, to reading Hansard carefully tomorrow, we were impressed by some of the Minister's earlier remarks, which appeared to give a clear commitment that the purpose of the Bill was not—among other things—to eliminate breeds of sheep from this country. The more that the Minister says that in this House, the better.
	However, the Minister saying something in this House—or anywhere else—and including words in the Bill are two different things. As it stands, little in the schedule sets out clearly commitments of the kind that the Minister appeared to give earlier—which perhaps he will give again in response to the amendments. There are simply two lines that say that the Minister can choose not to proceed with the provisions of the schedule for slaughter or castration in certain exceptional circumstances. That is regarded as insufficient by the people in this country responsible for the relevant breeds of sheep.
	The amendments would not only help the legislation, by clarifying the Minister's commitments for the future, but would be a valuable way of telling the owners of rare and traditional breeds that they have a future that would not simply be a struggle against the elimination of their flocks. The amendments have two purposes, and both should be regarded as important.
	The first amendment states that,
	"The Minister in exercising his powers under this section shall pay due regard to the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity".
	That would be create a clear commitment in the Bill to maintaining the diversity of sheep flocks in this country. The second amendment sets out in detail a proposal that, when the Minister implements the provisions outlined in the section, he must get scientific evidence before he will go ahead with the slaughter or castration of particular breeds of sheep. That would make sure that the decision was based on genuine scientific evidence. It would also ensure that, if circumstances for a particular breed were such that applying the normal provisions of the schedule would endanger the future of that breed, those provisions would not be applied. The Government might think hard over the summer about whether they might table an amendment of their own that would satisfy those of us on these Benches and in other parts of the House, as well as those who are responsible for maintaining something that is an important part of our biodiversity, food, livestock and ecosystem, as well as part of our heritage.
	There are several circumstances in which breeds may be endangered, particularly if the numbers are small—in the low hundreds perhaps. The average number of sheep in many of the rare breeds in the country is only about 300 or 350. Where there are small numbers, there is the risk that a relatively high proportion of sheep from those breeds will be of genotypes that are susceptible to scrapie. The Rare Breeds Survival Trust has provided me with some evidence that the situation for three breeds on which testing has taken place—the Soay, North Ronaldsay and Castlemilk Moorit breeds—is not rosy. The most susceptible genotype—the ARR—is rare, and most of those sheep are of a genotype that would be in danger if they were treated in the same way as a bigger breed. Scrapie-susceptible genotypes can be bred relatively quickly and easily out of breeds of sheep that have greater numbers and in which all sorts of genotypes are frequent. That cannot be done if the numbers are small and the appropriate genes are rare in a particular breed.
	We would welcome a positive commitment from the Government to the future of rare and traditional breeds in this country. Best of all, we want the Minister to think hard over the summer about some appropriate words that could be put into the Bill to give people the confidence that they need. It is an important matter and should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in this House and another place, as set out in the last part of the amendment.

Lord Jopling: I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for what he has just said. The wording of new Section 36C(2) is too vague and needs toughening up.
	I spoke earlier about the position of the Herdwick breed from the Lake District, my former constituency. That breed is not in danger of being eliminated altogether. In the area where I was brought up, the Wensleydale breed was used very extensively as a crossing ram. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, spoke about the stratification of sheep breeding from the top of the hill down to the lowlands, and the eventual production of sheepmeat that the housewife wants through a series of crossings as one came down the hills into the valleys.
	In the days before the Second World War, one of the great and most famous crossing breeds in the north of England was the Masham. My noble friend Lady Masham calls herself by that small town where I was brought up. The Masham ewe was one of the most famous crossing ewes of all. It was the product of a crossing between a Wensleydale ram and a Swaledale ewe. They were then taken down into the lowlands and crossed in the classic way, principally, in the old days, with a Suffolk ram. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, that produced a marketable animal.
	However, the Wensleydale ram went out of fashion after the Second World War, very largely through the introduction of the Teeswater ram, and now the Masham ewe is by no means as popular as it used to be. It has largely been taken over by the mule breeding ewe. The ancestry of that comes from the northern regions, because the Border or blue-faced Leicester, the Hexham Leicester, ram is now much more popular with mountain breeds. A few Wensleydale rams are still around, and it would be a total tragedy if that great gene line, which was used for centuries in the north of England, were to disappear.
	I therefore support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves said about the need to be much more specific on the face of the Bill with regard to preserving the existing genes. I am very unhappy about the present wording. Because of my concern that some of the great genebanks of the now currently unfashionable breeds may disappear altogether, which would be a great loss to the biodiversity of our country and of the world, I feel much more inclined to support Amendments Nos. 30 and 31.

The Countess of Mar: I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for exactly the same reasons as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.
	Although the Blackface Scottish sheep, mentioned by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the Welsh hill sheep are fairly numerous at the moment, I understand that for a long time MAFF—I do not know whether DEFRA has taken over the cloak of MAFF in this respect—has not liked the lambs produced by mountain sheep. Sheep tend to produce male and female lambs in more or less equal numbers. Female lambs are wonderful—they go on to breed—but what does one do with all the small, male lambs that do not fit into the European grading system? For a long time, the only markets for such sheep have been the Spanish and Italian ones where they like to cook their lambs whole. However, foot and mouth disease was a disaster because there was then no market for the little lambs. Tesco started selling small lambs, which worked for a while.
	We must maintain the diversity of our flock. The Minister is learning a great deal about sheep tonight; about all the different breeds and how the system works. We must ensure that we keep the Blackface sheep and the mountain sheep because they are the base for our breeding stock for meat. I wholly support the need for biodiversity.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I support the amendments. They are among the most important on the Marshalled List tonight because people were concerned that Part 2 of the Bill threatened variety and biodiversity. The amendments spell out what the Government have stated obliquely in new Section 36C(2). However, it needs to be stated clearly that in allowing exceptions in an accelerated programme for the elimination of scrapie, which most Members believe is a good one, there must be safeguards in particular for biodiversity. I should be pleased if the Government were able to accept a specific amendment along those lines.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Having drafted Amendment No. 31, I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Jopling. Recently in Craven Arms market, Knighton market and Builth Wells it is common to have 20,000 Clun Forest ewes. When I was about 10 years old, I used to drove thousands of Kerry Hill ewes into the market place. Their numbers are now small—they are almost rare breeds—and they represent a gene pool which must have a chance to survive. That is vital because many of the characteristics of those two breeds are unique, which is why they were so popular and may become popular again. We must be careful about what we are doing in this legislation.

Lord Carter: We can see what the noble Lord is driving at with these amendments. I was interested in the description of the various breeds by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. We all knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was a Cross-Bencher but it seems that she is also a cross-breeder.
	As at Amendment No. 31(2A), experience tells me that it is dangerous to specify a list by order because if one is missed out there could be considerable problems. I should be interested to know whether the Minister will adopt the devise that is often used for consultation amendments in the Bill; a requirement to consult.
	The Government must be left with a degree of freedom because the people and organisations with whom they must consult change. If they are specified by order, one runs into problems. Furthermore, if we were to have such an order as that specified in subsection (2B)—and it would not be necessary if there were a consultation amendment—it should be under the negative rather than the affirmative procedure.
	It would be better if the Minister would consider a consultation amendment. That is often a way of getting around the problem of having to specify matters in a changing situation. I understand all that has been said about minority breeds but all the briefing I have seen shows that DEFRA is anxious to understand the problems. It is consulting all the stakeholders and there would be consultation on any orders it lays. Therefore, it would do the Government no harm to accept a consultation amendment.

Baroness Byford: I support the two amendments, although I accept that Amendment No. 31 is a little too specific. However, the desire behind it is to achieve the preservation of certain breeds and I hope that the Government will give it serious thought.
	As regards Amendment No. 30, are any requirements laid on the Government under the 1992 convention? I am not aware that any are. I should like that clarified.
	Secondly, perhaps I may pull my noble friend's leg. My noble friend Lord Jopling referred to the housewife wanting quality of meat. Heaven forbid! In our family, my husband sometimes buys the meat and has a very good eye for good quality meat. Although I jest, my noble friend makes an important point. To obtain the quality of meat we all want, it is important that some of these breeds are preserved, and with care.
	What are other European countries doing about their respective sheep breeds? Are they being as specific as we are? Where are they on their sheep breeding programme? Where are they on their scrapie eradication programme? The noble Lord mentioned two countries, France—and I cannot remember the other country—which have started along this path. What responsibilities are placed on countries in the EU? I accept that they may not all keep sheep but most do. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister.
	The right reverend Prelate rightly spoke of variety and biodiversity. Those of us who sat through many minutes, hours and days of debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Act will remember that one of my amendments proposed a proper biodiversity plan. I support the right reverend Prelate's comments.
	On Amendment No. 30, do we have to have regard to any rules and regulations? Amendment No. 31 as drafted may be too specific. However, it would be helpful if the Government were to propose an amendment which meets the views expressed today.
	If I wished to tempt, I might ask noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches to put the matter to a vote. The matter is serious. It is one to which we must return later. I urge the Minister to clarify some of the points raised and hope that the Government will meet some of the concerns at the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Whitty: I recognise the concern about preservation of rare breeds and other blood lines. It is the Government's intention to do exactly what noble Lords urge. The exceptional circumstance provision would allow such issues as rarity and genetic value of the breed to be exempted from aspects of the scrapie plan. We are already in discussion with individual breed societies on the issue. We are conducting a voluntary genotype survey in rare breed flocks and working closely with the Rare Breeds Survival Trust.
	If there turned out to be breeds where conversion to resistance would be wholly impractical, or would endanger the breed, clearly that would fall under exceptional circumstances. We need to continue in that direction. The Government's commitment is in no doubt.
	We support all the provisions of the convention, as do other countries. We do not think that there is a contradiction between the convention and improving the management of the flock. That was discussed at the recent meeting of the parties in May 2000. It was recognised that there is potential to improve the management of agricultural stock through selection and breeding without contravening the biodiversity aspect. The Government's practice to date has been to do precisely what noble Lords seek.
	I believe that Members of the Committee recognise that the amendment as it stands is not satisfactory, in part because the second amendment is a list provision and thus would mean that we could not exempt things for other purposes. In some cases it could be interpreted literally. On this occasion, I recognise the concerns expressed and I undertake to see whether anything can be done to ameliorate them. Whether that takes a form along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Carter or otherwise, I have not yet decided. I shall return to the matter on Report.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful for the general support expressed on all sides of the Committee for the amendments. I believe that I can now include the Minister in that support—or at least the potential is there. I thank him for his comments. We look forward with eager anticipation to seeing what he brings back on Report.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we would not put this matter to a vote tonight. It is too important simply to make a political gesture. Given the commitment made by the Minister that he will spend some time considering the matter over the summer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 15, line 27, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 15, line 28, leave out "allowing the sheep to be used for breeding" and insert "banning breeding from the sheep"

Lord Plumb: This amendment recognises the different emphasis between subsections (2) and (3). The latter implies that breeding that is unjustified would be the verdict in a minority of cases. On the other hand, subsection (2) refers to "exceptional circumstances" in which sheep would be allowed to breed.
	I hope the Minister recognises from our earlier debates that we are moving towards scrapie-free breeding sheep. If we look back over the past year, the genotyping of over 100,000 sheep to establish their resistance to scrapie has been completed under the national scrapie plan, which is impressive. A well-defined pattern is now being put in place. The real concern lies in the linkage between subsection (3) and subsections (7) and (9). Subsection (9) provides that animals with a high susceptibility,
	"[have] to be slaughtered before the end of the period of seven months".
	I am pleased that the Minister has pledged his support for the continuation of this all-important scheme. It will lead to a more positive outcome in the long term.
	The study carried out by the Institute of Rural Studies at the University of Wales has been referred to several times. Two of the most eminent scientists I know in the sheep industry have made it absolutely clear that they believe that the most effective means of enhancing the rate at which the national flock moves towards scrapie resistance is to increase the uptake of the national scrapie plan. Given that, I hope the Minister will accept that the amendment is moved with much feeling and concern for the future development of the breeding flocks in this country. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: I have a little difficulty with the amendment because it is does not make sense. What is being said here is that the banning of breeding in sheep would not be justified and that the Minister must give notice to the keeper. If one thinks that a ban on breeding in sheep is not justified, then one is allowing the sheep to breed. Why must a notice be given to the keeper? I think I have said enough.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I believe this amendment to be misconceived. I should like to come to the defence of the Minister in this respect. In new Section 36C of the 1981 Act we are talking about sheep where we are presuming that there is a problem from the point of view of a genotype. We are presuming that we shall not be using them for breeding. However, new Section 36C(2) refers to "exceptional circumstances", which may be some of those covered by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Nevertheless, it may be right to allow breeding. If I may say so, with due respect, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has misunderstood the general thrust of this part of the Bill. I support the Government on this point.

Lord Jopling: I have a problem that I believe it may be convenient for me to raise at this stage, especially as this amendment deals with the possibility of "banning breeding from the sheep". I have been concerned for quite some time about the details of banning. No doubt when he responds and talks about banning breeding from sheep, the Minister will be kind enough to refer to what appears a little further on in subsection (7)(a), which says that the keeper must not,
	"use a sheep to which the notice applies, or its semen, eggs or embryos, for purposes of or connected with breeding".
	That is the nuts and bolts of banning breeding.
	Science has moved on. We now know that it is possible to breed from a sheep without using semen, eggs, or embryos. There is the famous case of Dolly the sheep, which was cloned and not bred from semen, eggs or embryos. I have not managed to find a tabled amendment that deals with this point, so I believe that this is the time to raise it. As regards the banning of breeding of sheep, can the Minister say how the definitions under the Bill cover the use of modern cloning techniques where an animal can be produced technically by using material from the animal that is not semen, eggs or embryos?
	At some stage in the proceedings on the Bill, we may need to add an amendment to the list of semen, eggs or embryos to embrace the possibility of cloning from material taken from an animal that would not fall under those descriptions. I hope that I have made myself clear. It is the classic case of Dolly the sheep that brings me to the thought that perhaps the definition of what is banned is not properly covered in the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on that aspect in his reply.

Lord Carter: I wondered when Dolly the sheep would enter our debates. The noble Lord has made an interesting point. However, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, that I believe he was a little inconsistent in proposing this amendment. As we all know, there is every intention to get on with the national scrapie plan; indeed, everyone involved wants to get on with it. Yet the amendment, as proposed, would in fact delay the process. It would be time-consuming and introduce delay. I realise what the noble Lord is driving at but if we were to proceed in the way suggested it would delay the NSP. I am sure that that is not the noble Lord's intention.

Lord Whitty: I cannot respond to the amendment any more eloquently or logically than the right reverend Prelate. I believe that the intention here is misconstrued, because it would be putting the exception the wrong way round. The presumption is that we can ban unless there are "exceptional circumstances"—in which case we allow breeding. That is what subsection (2) provides. It could include the circumstances that we were debating as regards the previous amendment.
	I turn to cloning. Cloning is not covered in any part of the Bill and there is certainly no intention either to facilitate or not to facilitate cloning in general. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made an interesting point. If the intention is to stop breeding and to get past the provisions by using otherwise legal cloning, that would present a different set of circumstances which we might need to take into account. I shall take advice on that before we reach the Bill's next stage.

The Countess of Mar: Does one not need an egg to clone a sheep? I understand that one uses an egg and modifies it in order to do the cloning.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I come to the Minister's defence again. The Bill refers to,
	"a sheep . . . or its semen, eggs or embryos".
	I should have thought that the word "sheep" at the beginning of those two phrases would cover cloning or any other scientific procedure that may be developed in years to come.

Lord Jopling: No, that is not so because "semen, eggs or embryos" refers to particles of living tissue taken from a sheep. Technically, cloning can be carried out by taking living material from a live animal which is not semen, egg or embryo. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is nodding in agreement. All four items would involve material taken from the animal. That is different from the broad description, "sheep". If "sheep" does not embrace those other three items, it should embrace the four items.

Lord Plumb: I have no quarrel with the Minister's response. It brought out some extremely useful points and it led to a discussion of the cloning issue and of Dolly. That is an added dimension but it helps the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Haskel: I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 34 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 35 and 36.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 15, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—
	"( ) Upon completion of the provisions outlined in section subsection (2), the Minister shall establish—
	(a) a restriction notice in which the restrictions and the requirements imposed by subsections (7) to (9) apply in relation to sheep after the completion of four years following the commencement of the eradication scheme with pedigree flocks; and
	(b) a further target date for the national commercial sheep flock of the eradication of genes susceptible to scrapie."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I regard this as an extremely important amendment. In saying that, I pray in aid the letter that some of us received from John Thorley, the secretary of the National Sheep Association. In doing so, I acknowledge the presence here of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. Happily, I met him unexpectedly at the Royal Welsh Show, which led to a discussion of some of these important issues.
	Sir John Thorley said in the last paragraph of his letter:
	"To take the industry forward in a sensible way, we would contend that a period of four breeding seasons needs to elapse before consideration is given to introduce rules which entail restricting the use of breeding stock according to their resistance rating. Our recommendation therefore is that any legislation currently being put in place should reflect this aspect as the best option to move the industry forward in a constructive way".
	The amendment is an attempt to meet the wishes of the industry, as expressed by the National Sheep Association, and to address them in a practical manner. Therefore, paragraph (a) addresses "pedigree flocks" and paragraph (b) the situation in the "commercial sheep flock", which we have already discussed at some length.
	We would like there to be concentration on the pedigree flocks to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of rams in the country within four years that are resistant to the imposition of scrapie—in other words, of high specification—so that they can be put on ewes in order to upgrade the entire British sheep flock.
	Clearly in the case of commercial sheep flocks, where there are insufficient numbers of rams of a high enough specification, a greater length of time will be required to bring those flocks up to date in comparison with pedigree flocks. The amendment will fulfil the timescales required to upgrade the flocks, particularly the pedigree flocks, so that we get well on our way towards establishing an eventual scrapie-free flock in the United Kingdom.
	This is related to the national scrapie plan—it could be a specification—and the amendment would fulfil some good objectives. Reference was made earlier to establishing targets which could be met. But, crucially, we need time to procure an improved flock and time to ensure that there are enough sheep in the country with scrapie-resistant genes. It has been estimated that it could take 20 years to achieve that with the commercial flock—that may or may not be correct—but we could start with pedigree flocks, meet some targets and use those on the commercial flocks in the country.

Lord Carter: I am not sure whether the noble Lord has missed out something in the drafting of the amendment. The first line states:
	"Upon completion of the provisions outlined in section subsection (2)".
	Should "section 36C" be inserted? Is that what the noble Lord intended?

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I believe so.

Lord Carter: Yes. It would only make sense if that were inserted. That has been missed out.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I apologise.

Lord Carter: I do not understand the English, as it were, in paragraph (a). Once the Minister has completed the provisions outlined in subsection (2)—which covers the exceptional circumstances—he applies,
	"a restriction notice in which the restrictions and the requirements imposed by subsections (7) to (9) apply in relation to sheep".
	Which sheep? The sheep that have been caught by the exceptional circumstances? Is that the intention?
	The paragraph continues:
	"after the completion of four years following the commencement of the eradication scheme with pedigree flocks".
	I am not at all clear about the underlying meaning.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I have to be quite honest, I am not used to being cross-examined on the drafting of amendments by a former Chief Whip. Clearly I mean the upgrading of the pedigree flocks. That means that after four years there will be a sufficient critical mass of sheep which reach the required standards and terms of the necessary gene pool.

Baroness Byford: I support the thrust of the amendment. We are, perhaps, beginning to cover the same ground over and over again, but it is right that that should happen.
	The amendment ties in with my Amendment No. 95A. I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right to seek clarification, but again and again we come back to the whole question of ensuring that we have enough gene stock for the future. I may be repeating myself, but again I ask the Minister why we are in such a hurry? I know that we want to move the agenda forward but, as I asked when debating earlier amendments, what kind of target plan do the Government have in mind? The current provision on the voluntary side is likely to take up to 25 years, which the Government think is too long. But how long do they think is sufficiently long enough but not too long? If, in trying to protect a nucleus of our breeding stock, the Minister does not like the four-year period, I hope he will recognise—as he may when we debate my Amendment No. 95A at the end of the Session—that it is beholden on him to give us some indication as to what period of time the Government feel is reasonable, practical and possible. We are not asking to tie the Minister down to a period of three years and nine months, or six years and 28 days. But the present debate is open-ended—it ranges from suggestions of a period of four years, to the 20 years suggested at present.
	At some stage the Government must become much sharper in their responses. If not, they will find a certain insistence on these Benches, if not from colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to seek greater clarification. We seek to ensure that our sheep are the best sheep produced in the UK, and in the world, and that people want to buy our produce. The one thing that we do not want to do is to reduce our ability to produce prime quality meat.

The Countess of Mar: I agree with the noble Baroness and with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, on the need for a time-scale for the plan, whether it is voluntary or compulsory. However, dare I say that I find paragraph (a) of the amendment woolly? It is not clear. It needs to be tidied up if we are to accept it. Subject to the Minister's response, perhaps the noble Lord will agree to bring it back at the next stage.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We think that there may be a misprint in the amendment, but we have not got to the bottom of it. So I hope that the noble Countess will accept that for the moment.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness is pressing for end dates to a process that we are yet in the process of defining. We are not clear about exactly what tracts can be benchmarks beyond the immediate ones. So I cannot oblige the noble Baroness with even a target end date to this process. I know that the NSA has suggested that there should be a four-year brake on the process, as it were, presumably in order to get a phased approach to dealing with the breeding restrictions, first, on pedigree flocks and then on commercial flocks. I can understand why the NSA wants that, but to lay down such a time-scale in statute would not be wise or helpful. We need to do it either on a voluntary basis or on a mandatory basis.
	We need to discuss further with the industry the phasing of this approach. A certain amount of flexibility is needed. Therefore, whether or not the clarity of the wording of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, can be addressed, I do not accept the principle of writing a period of four years on to the face of the Bill.

Baroness Byford: Before the noble Lord replies, in my request to him earlier I was not referring to such a provision being placed on the face of the Bill. I was seeking clarification in general terms. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, but from our point of view it would be enormously helpful if we could have some indication from the Government as to whether the period might be five, 10 or 15 years—or two years.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: There are a number of points to make in summing up the debate. It is clearly the wish of the NSA to have a period of four breeding seasons from here on. The reason for that is that the association lost some time before the foot and mouth outbreak, and lost time in implementing the scheme during the foot and mouth outbreak. But in addition, during the foot and mouth outbreak a number of high-quality, scrapie-free flocks were destroyed. So in one sense matters have gone backwards: sheep have been slaughtered that would have been used to accelerate the scheme. The four breeding seasons stipulated in the amendment take account of that situation.
	It may be that the national scrapie plan ought to aim for four breeding seasons to ensure that there are enough pedigree rams in the country to take the scheme on. We have debated whether that should be in statute. I should like that to be clarified. If the Minister does not want it on the face of the Bill, perhaps he might have discussions with the various parties about the national scrapie plan to see if an action plan can be produced to take the sheep industry forward a long way in eliminating scrapie over a reasonable period. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 15, line 29, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
	Page 15, line 36, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	Page 15, line 38, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 15, line 38, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Byford: We hope that whoever briefs the Minister about the need for the restriction notice will know whether the owner and/or the keeper are one and the same person. If they are not, the process leading up to the raising of the instruction should identify the owner. After that, the copy of the instructions for the owner is a detail for the department, but of a great simplification for the person receiving it. Will the Minister explain in slightly greater detail the process by which he or the department envisage the instructions being raised? I beg to move.

Lord Jopling: I strongly support the amendment, particularly because sheep are sent away from the protection of the owner to the protection of others much more often than any other type of farm animal. It is very common practice. I know the north of England, but others here will have experience of other places, such as Wales, where sheep are sent away for the winter from the upland areas—what in the North we call the upper dales—to be finished or fattened on sugar beet tops or, in the old days, turnips down in the lowlands. That is still a fairly common practice.
	I knew an old farmer years ago who used to talk about his sheep going away for their summer holidays. It is very common practice for sheep to be agisted, as it is called, into areas under the care and protection of someone who is not the owner. In most cases, if an order has to be given to the keeper of the sheep, he will immediately tell the owner what has happened, but, as this is such common practice, that will not always happen. It is essential that the interests of the owner should be properly looked after, bearing in mind that so many sheep are put away on to land other than the owner's to be looked after at various times of the year by other people.

The Countess of Mar: I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Before we had our own sheep flock, we used to take what in the Midlands we would call a flying flock—lambs and hoggets—just for fattening; they used to use our grass. They would be with us for perhaps a few weeks and then go on either to market or to new pastures. It is essential that both the keeper and the owner are advised of the status of their sheep.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This is a very common practice across Wales, which has very large sheep flocks—indeed, we have more sheep than Scotland. It is common practice to take them up to the hills and then to send them down to Pembrokeshire dairy farms in the winter. Many sheep were trapped there at the beginning of the foot and mouth outbreak. Some people did not get their sheep back until well after the middle of the following summer, which gave rise to animal welfare problems. The amendment deals with a very common practice which needs to be provided for in the legislation.

Lord Whitty: I am not sure that I follow the logic of the arguments. The Bill already allows sufficient flexibility for the order to be issued to the person in charge of the sheep at the appropriate time regardless of whether that is the owner or the keeper. This amendment would restrict that flexibility.

The Countess of Mar: How would it restrict it if both are told?

Lord Whitty: The person who has to carry out the instructions is the person in charge of the sheep at that time. The Bill already provides for that. There could be substantial delay and an additional burden if there is a double requirement to check up on both the owner and the keeper of the sheep. I am not sure what the point of that would be. I accept everything that I have been told about how we manage sheep, but I draw the opposite conclusion. I therefore do not accept this amendment.

Baroness Byford: I am very surprised by the Minister's response. If it was not late and more noble Lords were available I would certainly divide on the amendment. I shall not do so, but I hope that the Minister will re-examine the issue and give it a little more thought. Perhaps the message from the officials was not very helpful. I do not see a problem with an expectation that the owner should be told. If their sheep are going to be affected, for goodness' sake, they should be told. If someone such as my noble friend Lord Plumb has my sheep, I should hope that he would notify me. Ultimately, they are my sheep. He might be helping me out and looking after them, but they are mine. The Minister shakes his head. Either one owns something or one does not—although I appreciate the expression that my noble friend Lord Jopling used about sheep going for their summer holiday.
	The Minister may think that the tone of this debate is flippant, but it is not. I hope that his colleagues realise that. I shall not press the amendment now although I think the issue hugely important. I ask the Minister, please, to go away and think about this before we return to it on Report.

Lord Greaves: There are a couple of points. First, it seems that the Minister is confusing the nature of the operation. He is assuming that the urgency to which he became accustomed when dealing with foot and mouth is necessary in this type of situation. As I said some hours ago, surely there is a huge difference between eradicating an endemic disease such as scrapie and dealing with an outbreak of a highly infectious disease such as foot and mouth. There is a difference. I therefore do not think that suggestions that this provision might cause huge delay count for very much. I do not think that it would cause huge delay. It might cause a short delay, but I do not think that that matters.
	Secondly, if we are to include rights of appeal in the Bill, we should realise that it is more likely that the owner of the sheep will need and wish to exercise those rights than the person minding the sheep. It seems a fundamental point.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I hope that I may suggest the following wording to the Minister,
	"shall give a copy of the restriction notice to the owner"
	or,
	"shall also give a copy of the restriction notice to the owner",
	which could be done simultaneously so that there would be no delay. At least the owner would know about the matter and could then decide whether or not he wished to appeal.

Baroness Byford: The right reverend Prelate has hit the nail on the head. I was about to suggest the same thing. The person who will appeal will presumably be the owner; it will not be the keeper. I urge the Minister to follow the good advice he has been given and give the matter some further thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Lord Brougham and Vaux: In calling Amendment No. 43, I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 44 and 45.

The Countess of Mar: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 16, leave out lines 8 to 13.

The Countess of Mar: Most people who are under instructions not to breed from their sheep and to destroy all eggs and sperm will not want to keep their sheep and will probably send them off to be killed. However, some people who keep sheep, particularly rare breed sheep, will want to keep them as pets. They will know from the notice that if they use the sheep for breeding purposes they will be subject to a punishment which I should imagine is worse than death. I see no reason that such people should not be allowed to keep those sheep for the period of the latters' lives without having them mutilated or destroyed. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for the noble Countess's explanation of the amendment. The whole question of pets is not a matter that I had picked up from the Bill. Many people keep sheep as pets. I should not have thought that the plan which the Government seek to implement should include sheep kept as pets. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I am grateful to the noble Countess for raising the matter.

Lord Greaves: We are generally sympathetic to the aims of the noble Countess's amendment. We shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

Lord Carter: I am not entirely sure whether I have understood the matter we are discussing. Does the noble Countess envisage holding up the entire national scrapie plan in the interests of safeguarding pet sheep? Is that the intention?

The Countess of Mar: I assure the noble Lord that that is not the case. The measure would not hold up the entire national scrapie plan. The sheep I am discussing will not be used for breeding purposes. Punishments will be put in place for breeding from certain sheep. Notices will be sent to the owners of certain sheep which fall within certain genotypes. What is the point of destroying them if they are kept as pets? That is like telling people that they must have their pet dogs destroyed. However, the TSE regulations do not apply to dogs, so I cannot compare pet sheep with dogs. People will be forbidden from using certain sheep for breeding purposes. Commercial sheep breeders will not want to keep sheep they cannot use for breeding purposes. I would not want to keep any of my Black Welsh Mountain sheep that fell into the wrong genotype. I would arrange to have such sheep slaughtered. However, some people would want to keep their sheep for various reasons. They would understand that they could not use them for breeding purposes, so why not let them keep those sheep? There is enough distress in the farming community with all the killing that is going on. Let us say that it does not need to be done in this one instance.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I support those comments. Subsection (7) of new Section 36C achieves the objective of the national scrapie plan; that is, the relevant breeding is stopped. That is what needs to be done. There is no necessity to slaughter the animals we are discussing. It would be sensible and charitable to accept the noble Countess's amendment. It would not make any difference to the incidence of breeding or to the national scrapie plan. It would just allow individual owners, if they wish, to keep the animals we are discussing.

Lord Whitty: I now understand the point that the noble Countess is making. On the face of it, her amendment seemed to undermine the scrapie provisions. It would have made enforcement of the prohibition on breeding from such animals impossible. Indeed, it would be difficult to see why farmers should want to resist that if we were talking about commercial sheep farming. But the noble Countess is dealing with a rather different situation in which the animals are kept for a non-commercial purpose.
	I had better consider that matter. I certainly do not believe that I could accept the rather comprehensive way in which the noble Countess has drafted the amendment. But now that I understand the intention behind it, I shall try to see whether there is another way of dealing with the matter.

The Countess of Mar: I am very grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 16, line 11, leave out "given" and insert "received"

The Duke of Montrose: In moving Amendment No. 44, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45. Here, we are treading much of the same ground as we covered in earlier amendments. We are all aware of the vagaries of modern communications. I stand in great admiration of the communication skills that exist within this building and the rate at which messages can be passed around. But this morning the noble Lord, Lord Moran, did not receive a message—I am not sure where it emanated from—until a long time after he was supposed to have done.
	Thus, communications problems do arise, and that is where Amendment No. 44 comes in. Rather than imposing a deadline of when notice has been given, we should prefer the deadline to be when notice has been received. I should be more comfortable if it were certain that a restriction notice had been received by the person in question. The word "given" could be subject to misunderstanding and the outcome of that would be an appeal.
	One of the main messages from all three reports on the foot and mouth outbreak has been the need for better communication. In fact, the Lessons to be Learned Inquiry report drew attention to the fact that a message sent to Pirbright by e-mail was not opened for 24 hours. If an error of that kind can occur in government departments at that level, it is not hard to imagine how the problem could multiply once one started to pass messages to rural areas.
	In Amendment No. 45, we seek to substitute "12 months" for "seven months". It is hard to see what science is driving the Government, unless the Minister has information on the incubation period for scrapie or something similar. If that is so, I hope that he will share it with us. If the provisions in the Bill were carried through up to this point, by that time the animal would have been sterilised. Susceptible animals are not of themselves a threat. Therefore, such animals will be left alive either because they are nursing a lamb or because of sentimental reasons, such as mentioned by the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
	I suggest that it would be better for the owner if the flock were afforded the option of a full 12 months before slaughter merely in an effort to see what the Government consider to be the purpose of setting the date at seven months.
	On another matter, it is not clear whether the Government have given any thought as to what they will do if they come across a flock of ewes in mid-pregnancy or ewes which have more than one month of their five-month pregnancy left. How will the Government expect to treat either the pregnant ewes or the offspring which will have been born shortly after the period? Our amendment would extend the period from seven to 12 months in relation to the restriction notice imposed by the Government.
	I have additional concerns. For example, would it be possible to identify a sheep after it had been sold on? The person who sells it is committing an offence. But unless a standardised description is used, will the animal be traceable? I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support Amendment No. 44, which states that the period is from the time when the restriction notice is served to when it is "received". That is very important, given communications in the countryside.
	As to Amendment No. 45, it is not clear why seven months were initially suggested. Is that related to the breeding cycle of five months less two months? Is it something of that kind or some arbitrary reason? It is not clear. Perhaps it has something to do with not wanting to breed from animals, perhaps ewes, that have undesirable genes. I should like clarification. If that is the reason, perhaps one should not keep them for 12 months. I am not clear. I should like further information.

The Countess of Mar: I too support these amendments. Through legislation we frequently get questions of notices being sent on a particular date. Especially given the expected changes in the Post Office with deliveries of mail, and the failure of mail in the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, the provision should state "received" rather than "given". The post should be sent recorded delivery so that there is a signature for the mail.
	I share the noble Duke's concern about timing, particularly with ewes. It does not matter so much with rams. One must think about the lambs when slaughtering ewes. Will one slaughter the lambs if the ewe has lambs at foot? What will one do if she is pregnant within that period? For example, how will one sterilise a ewe within one month of the notice if she is pregnant? I think there are problems— welfare problems. The noble Lord should take the matter away and think about it seriously.

Lord Whitty: As to Amendment No. 45, I do not understand the logic of extending the period by yet another five months. What additional purpose is there in that? I do not think that commercial sheep farmers would wish to retain for that period a sheep which they are required to slaughter and from which they cannot breed.
	With regard to allowing time to appeal, that would have been dealt with well before the seven months. I do not see the point of the additional five months.

The Duke of Montrose: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We are not particularly settled on 12 months. We are considerably puzzled by the Government's fixing on seven months in the first instance.

Lord Whitty: My immediate reaction is that I do not know why we settled on seven months. If anything it is probably too long. I would resist any extension. We would be slowing down the whole process for something which farmers, by and large, would not want to do anyway. I think that seven months is not a bad guideline.
	The appeal is one month and then six months to allow the animal to be fattened to maximise market return. That is roughly the rule of thumb. Another five months would take most cases over the top for that purpose. It is a little arbitrary, but that is roughly how we got there.
	On Amendment No. 44, I seem to remember arguments in previous legislation as to whether something should be dispatched or received. Frankly, there is enough time in this area. We are not talking about missing the post by a day or two. If someone wishes to dispute the point of receipt, that can lead to endless problems. If the point of dispatch is clear, that is the normal way we deal with such matters. There would be problems if we were going to take action within 48 hours. That is not the case with these provisions.

The Countess of Mar: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to reconsider the period during which animals are expected to be slaughtered. That provision needs to be tidied up a little. There is no problem with regard to lambs but we must also consider ewes. Ewes are in the picture, so to speak. They are pregnant for five months out of 12 and have their lambs at foot for at least three months, in most cases. In my case, our lambs are killed straight after the ewe, so they can go on for five or six months after they have been born. For welfare reasons, the Minister should specify the length of time and the state of pregnancy or suckling of the ewe.

The Duke of Montrose: We are obviously having trouble making our understanding clear. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the seven-month period. In fact, that is a long period. It is most unlikely that, if anyone who decided to fatten an adult animal of any kind, it would take that long. Perhaps we should consider the suggestion of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. If the animal has been castrated or sterilised, there is no need to specify when it should be slaughtered. As has been said, 12 months is neither here nor there. The question is whether, if there is resistance to the killing of an animal, we want to impose a limit of some kind. Having taking the debate that far, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and return to it once we know whether the Government have any thoughts on the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Page 16, line 16, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Page 16, line 18, leave out "brought" and insert "notified to the appeal court"

Lord Plumb: The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that applicants fully understand the procedure and that the procedures adopted are not ruled out of time because of postal delays—which we have been discussing. Anyone who has been told that it has taken three to four weeks to open the mail in a government office will know to what I refer. Getting a letter to the hills is, equally, often a major problem.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could take us through the appeal process—if not now, later. Will there be courts? Will there be regional administration centres? Will assessors be appointed on a full-time basis, or will they in fact work only part-time. Will they hold hearings in sessions? What performance targets are envisaged for them? What training and so on has been prepared for them? Who will deliver that and when?
	Those are matters of concern to those who will be affected. Will a new appointee be required to attend training before acting in his appointment capacity? Will the hearing be open or closed? What sort of minutes or court records will be taken? Will they be open to public scrutiny? Those are all matters of great concern to the individuals concerned. We need to get that laid down properly so that people can understand it when they may face a bill. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: Although I support the idea behind the amendment, I cannot see why, if the Minister has appointed an assessor, at the next stage we should be applying to an appeal court. That does not fit in with the system. However, I should like to know—I have not come across it in the Bill—the description of an assessor. Who will that assessor be? What will be his qualifications? Who will appoint him? I note that the Bill says that he will be appointed by the Minister. We need to know more about the person to whom the appeal will be made.

Lord Greaves: I support the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 52, which would make it mandatory for a restriction notice to contain instructions for making an appeal and applying for an extension prior to an appeal.
	It is vital that people who receive a notice be given information on how to make an appeal, to whom they should make it, the circumstances in which they can make it and the grounds on which they may make it. That is normal practice, and it is normal to lay it down in legislation. In many areas of life, people get notices and writs and all sorts of things. There is nothing to be lost by putting it in the legislation and a great deal to be gained by letting people know what their rights are and what they should do.

Lord Plumb: I hope that the Minister will take Amendments Nos. 50 and 52 along with Amendment No. 47. They marry together well.

Lord Whitty: The Bill does not set out the appeals process in detail, including details of the appointment of assessors and so on. One would not expect it to do so. It may be helpful if I undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, spelling out how the appeals process will work under the Bill and copy the letter to others who have taken part in the debate.
	The amendments would delay the process substantially, which is not what we would hope for. For example, the amendments give no time within which an appellant must formally lodge the details of an appeal. While there is an appeal, the restriction is suspended. Unless some time limit is built in, such additional loops in the appeals process would not be acceptable. Subsections (7) and (8) of new Section 36D contain provision for the procedures that are to be followed and allow for the extension of the period. However, the open-ended nature of what is in the amendments would mean that there would be no point at which the process would come to an end or by which the appellant must have provided details of the basis of his appeal.
	I had better clarify how we see the appeals process operating, but the amendments are not acceptable to the Government.

Lord Greaves: If I apply for planning permission, and my application is refused, I get a notice of refusal. Together with that notice—probably printed on the back—there are instructions for appealing against the refusal. I do not see how that slows the planning appeals process in any way. How can sending someone details of how they can appeal along with the refusal notice slow the process down? It is common sense.

The Countess of Mar: The noble Lord's amendment does not cut out the 21-day period; it remains in place. The amendment says only where the appeal should be brought. Nor do the two other amendments alter the time within which an appeal can be brought. I cannot understand—perhaps the noble Lord does not understand—what the amendment is about.

Lord Jopling: I agree with what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has just said and with what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, although that is not really what I rose to say. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who asked the Minister to say who the assessor is likely to be. I am a little uncertain as to who would best be qualified to act as an assessor. These are very technical matters that are not suitable to be dealt with by an agricultural valuer. My father was an agricultural valuer and knew a good deal about agricultural law and other matters. However, with great respect to him, his training was not greatly suited to deal with matters of this kind. Would it be a vet—I suppose one might say that a vet would be the most appropriate person—or would some kind of academic be the professional assessor? I cannot believe that that point is not dealt with in the Minister's brief.
	As we are now moving to new Section 36D of the Bill, dealing with appeals, we should first identify in our own minds for our subsequent debates exactly who the assessor will be. A good deal will depend on the training and expertise of the people who Ministers would appoint as assessors. I do not believe that members of the panel of agricultural arbitrators, who generally are valuers or land agents, are the most suitable people to act as assessors. I hope that the Minister can help us about that. It will be very difficult to continue to debate how appeals will be organised if we do not know what kind of person is to be the assessor.

Lord Whitty: The assessor could be anyone with experience of tribunals. This is not a question of veterinary knowledge. It is a question of fact, one way or another, on the basis of objective tests and on the basis of whether the requirements of notices have been complied with.
	I have already made an offer to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, to set out in writing how we intend that the appeals process should operate. In that context, it may also be helpful to include some sentences about how the assessors will be appointed and the range of people who may be considered as assessors.
	So far as the timetable is concerned, depending on which amendments are taken, it leaves a requirement to serve a notice of appeal, but not the grounds of the appeal, and the details that we would expect the assessor to consider. That can be an open-ended process.
	I am not prepared to accept any of the amendments as they stand. We shall consider what has been said and in the mean time I shall set out in writing how we see the system operating.

The Countess of Mar: Will the Minister consider changing the word "assessor"? He mentioned tribunals. In other contexts, we are used to hearing the word "adjudicator" rather than "assessor". Assessors are slightly different. I believe that "adjudicator" would be a better word to use, and it is well understood in the appeals system.

Lord Jopling: The Minister's reply was helpful in that it begins to take us forward. The noble Lord said that he will prepare notes. Perhaps I may put on record the thought that very few of the people who are used to working as assessors or arbitrators in tribunals would not necessarily have the expertise to deal with cases such as these, which in many instances will need an assessor with some rudimentary experience and knowledge of genetics.
	The system of making orders under the Bill demands a knowledge of genetics and genetic testing. Most people I have come across in arbitrations and tribunals do not have the foggiest idea about genetics. It would be totally absurd to appoint an assessor who had no training whatever in genetics and did not understand what a genotype was.

The Countess of Mar: Perhaps I can put the noble Lord's mind at rest. Wearing another hat, I am a member of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. I have been trained in my work as a member of that body and I am sure that the Minister would not appoint someone who did not know what he was talking about. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us.

Baroness Byford: The word "assessor" needs careful consideration. I am surprised that having reached this stage of the Bill after many months not a great deal of thought has been given to this section of it.

Lord Plumb: In the light of the Minister's response and his assurance that he will look at the matter and respond in writing, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 16, line 21, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 16, line 32, leave out "require" and insert "specify that"

The Duke of Montrose: In moving Amendment No. 53, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. The Bill states:
	"A direction . . . may require",
	which seems to be a tortology. A direction always "requires" and here we are trying to define what the direction should contain. We want to be sure that it contains enough detail, but there is no indication of how the Government consider it should be given. It could be by any means of communication and even by telephone.
	Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are consequential to changing "require" to "specify that". They propose leaving out the word "to" in the following two lines. Communication can take place in many ways and the fact that it has been received can be ascertained. Either someone delivers the item in person or the post will record that the item has been delivered and received. Simply being "given" is not satisfactory. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid that we cannot accept these amendments. They appear to add transparency to the appeals procedure but in fact they have the opposite effect. They would weaken the appeals mechanism by removing the assessor's ability to require that further sampling is undertaken, or that a different testing laboratory should undertake further genotype testing.
	We believe it is important that the appeals procedure remains legally robust and is transparent. I hope therefore that the noble Duke will not press his amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. I had thought that a legal meaning might be involved. We do not wish to weaken the approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 16, line 36, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 16, line 36, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Byford: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 58 to 60.
	I seek to make the provision more robust. The amendment changes "may" to "shall". We believe that the Minister must make regulations governing the procedure to be used for appeal. It follows, therefore, that he shall supplement the provisions of this section and shall make provisions as to the procedure. From earlier debates, I begin to wonder whether the Government have taken that on board. As it will not always be necessary to extend the period, the word "may" is still appropriate for paragraph (b) and, unless I can persuade noble Lords opposite to leave them out, subsection (8)(c) and (d).
	On Amendment No. 60, in general I am opposed to charging farmers for taking samples and running tests where the need to do so is in response to a theoretical risk. We are back to where we started some hours ago. As Members of the Committee have said many times, farmers want to eradicate scrapie if that can be done to a reasonable time-scale and at reasonable cost. In other words, I believe that they will co-operate. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for them to pay for a further test if necessary. The proof is that the test proves positive. Other noble Lords may not agree. I observe that the taking of samples and the running of tests is not always error free. It is not fair that the farming community should bear the total cost.
	The amendments change "may" to "shall" because we believe that the matter should not be left to a judgment. It should be the responsibility of the Government. On Amendment No. 60, the appellant would not have to accept further costs where the tests were negative. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We agree with leaving out "may" and inserting "shall", and that the appellant should not be liable for costs for the reasons stated.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may take each amendment separately.
	On Amendment No. 57, as currently drafted the Bill already provides for the application of regulations to supplement the appeals procedure. An obligation to enshrine the whole appeals process in regulation at this point in time would remove our flexibility to set out appropriate procedures in regulations when and if the scrapie provisions are implemented. Therefore, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
	On Amendment No. 58, as currently drafted the Bill provides for the discretionary application of regulations to supplement the appeals procedure. To include the provisions at subsection (8)(a) to (d) in regulations would be too restrictive. It would also mean having to include provisions requiring the applicants to meet reasonable costs of further sampling following an appeal which under the present wording is discretionary. Therefore, we would not wish to accept the amendment.
	We cannot accept Amendment No. 59 because it would duplicate existing provision at new Section 36D(8) on the face of the Bill.
	With regard to Amendment No. 60, the Bill allows us to recover costs related to re-sampling and testing but we would decide on this, depending on the circumstances. I should explain that we envisage invoking this only where further sampling and testing confirm the validity of the original sample and test. I think that that answers the point raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. The department will be responsible for bearing the costs of re-sampling as part of the appeals process in the first instance. This amendment is therefore unnecessary as the appellant would not incur costs if the re-sample was negative; that is to say, was different from the original test.
	I hope that that explanation has helped to clarify the position for the noble Countess. If, on reflection, she feels that she needs further information on the specific point raised, I shall be delighted to write to her.

The Countess of Mar: It must be getting late. I did not even rise to speak to the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If my memory serves me correctly, the noble Countess referred to this issue when speaking to an earlier amendment.

Baroness Byford: I thought that my night had been made by my becoming a countess.
	I understand the response made by the Minister but I am sure not sure that I agree with her in all respects, in particular as regards whether meeting the costs will be discretionary. If it is discretionary, the award of costs might fall in favour of one person and not of another—I see the noble Countess shakes her head at that remark.
	The hour is late. I shall read carefully the Minister's response. I had thought that my Amendment No. 60 would achieve exactly what has been set out by the Minister in her remarks; that is, costs on re-sampling in the first instance would be borne by the department. If the result proved the same as that found in the first test, then the owner would agree to accept the costs. I had thought that that was the thrust of my amendment. Have I misunderstood the Minister because she has said that that is already the position and I have missed it? If that is the case, I shall look at it again.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For clarification, the amendment is unnecessary as the appellant would not incur costs if the re-sample was negative; that is, different from the original test.

Baroness Byford: I think that we both agree the point. Perhaps I am getting a little tired.

Lord Jopling: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, the Minister said specifically that the costs would be met if the result was "different" from the previous test.
	Having some experience of science, test results invariably are different. Rarely will the results of two tests be exactly the same. Given that and bearing in mind what the Minister has just said, even if one test result was positive—unhelpful to the farmer—if the next test result was slightly different but still negative so far as the farmer was concerned, surely there would be no costs.
	If two negative test results differ by however little—perhaps I am making the Government's case for them—compared with one negative test followed by a positive test, that is totally different from having two negative but different results. I hope that the noble Baroness understands the thrust of my argument. I believe that she did say that if the test results are different, then no costs would be incurred. Is she referring to "different" as in a positive or negative result, or whether the second test is different in its result from that of the first test? This is rather an important distinction.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sorry, I am afraid that I became slightly lost in the number of negatives with which we are dealing. Perhaps I may explain it to the Committee in a different way. The effect of the amendment is that the supplementary regulations may provide for an appellant not to be liable for costs associated with re-testing, in accordance with new Section 36D(5)(c), where those test results contradict the original sample result.
	Although the costs of the test relating to re-sampling and testing as part of the appeals process are allowed for, we only envisage invoking this—if at all—where the re-sampling and testing confirm the result of the original sampling test. Therefore, the department will be responsible for the cost of re-sampling as part of the appeals process in the first instance. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is concerned that farmers would be required to pay up front for re-testing. However, I can offer him an assurance that that is not the case.

Baroness Byford: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendments Nos. 61 and 62:
	Page 17, line 9, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	Page 17, line 18, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 17, line 18, leave out "he considers appropriate" and insert "are necessary"

The Duke of Montrose: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 to 71. Amendment No. 63 is another proposal designed to tighten up the operating system backing up this Bill. As we heard earlier today, in real life the Minister concerned does not "consider". In the first instance he is advised by someone else who considers and makes recommendations to him. In a situation like this, where no one knows the size of the problem, the Minister may be advised by a large number of people, each of whom should be working to a common standard. Our hope is that this amendment will spur on the development of that standard.
	Amendment No. 69, together with Amendment No. 70, would cover the eventualities that are contained in the Bill and cut out the long wording; for example, in subsection (2) one could say that an offence is committed if the shepherd or farmer,
	"knowingly uses any semen, egg or embryo which has been taken from the sheep",
	rather than using the longer version as set out in the Bill. This, of course, presupposes some human intervention. It does not cover a case where a ewe or ram has not been properly sterilised, and, subsequently, turns out to be the cause of a pregnancy, though the owner will have to be able to produce an argument that this was not known at the time of fertilisation.
	There is also the possibility of frozen semen, or eggs, becoming mislabelled or mixed up in a laboratory. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of cases where that has taken place. The most recent case, about which we all read in newspaper reports, occurred in a human IVF clinic.
	I turn to Amendment No. 71. This provision is surely far too loosely drafted. One can understand it being an offence for someone to obstruct an inspector, but we really need some definition of who else is carrying out the Minister's function. If someone walking up the road decided that it would be fun to give the inspector a hand, that would not be very satisfactory. Would there not need to be some identifiable method of appointment for those whom the inspector believes to be appropriate to help? In fact, to return to what we discussed earlier, should they be required to show the evidence of their authority? I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We strongly support the noble Duke in his Amendment No. 63, which proposes to insert the words "are necessary" into subsection (3). We believe that that would make the provision much more precise and understandable. As regards the other amendments in this group, it is quite clear that they would make the wording of the Bill much more concise and to the point; and, indeed, improve the legislation no end. I was wondering when the issue of stray rams would come into our debates. Those of us involved in sheep farming know what can happen in certain circumstances, which are very often beyond our control—at least beyond our ability to hedge properly, or whatever. We strongly support these amendments.

The Countess of Mar: I have one small quibble. It is about Amendment No. 69, which would insert "knowingly" after "he". A little tautology is involved if the person "knowingly" uses,
	"semen, egg or embryo which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe",
	and so on. The proposal is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Duke will withdraw that amendment.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 63 seeks to employ a totally objective standard but it does not specify who decides what is necessary. In effect, it attempts to remove all discretion from the Minister, although issues of judgment are often involved, without saying who would take responsibility. That is not therefore appropriate.
	Amendment No. 68 largely deals with the question of delivery, on which I have already commented. I could not agree to that.
	Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 appear to weaken the ability to enforce the scrapie provisions in relation to semen, eggs and embryos. It would place the onus on prosecuting authorities to show that the other person knew that the semen, egg or embryo came from a sheep that was the subject of a restriction notice. That is quite a tall order. An offence is involved but it might be difficult to establish what the person knew. We would therefore wish to ensure that people who would reasonably have known that the sheep was subject to a notice could be deemed to have committed an offence. Clearly, in a situation in which someone else has made a mistake, that is a reasonable defence. In the case in which someone should reasonably have known, the offence should apply.

The Countess of Mar: Subsection (2) states:
	"Any other person commits an offence if he uses any semen, egg or embryo which he knows"—
	I stress that word—
	"or has reasonable cause to believe, has been taken from a sheep".
	I am not sure whether what was said is accurate. Adding "knowingly" is not necessary because the person already "knows", according to the subsection, that he is using the semen, egg or embryo.

Lord Whitty: On Amendment No. 69, it is the noble Duke who seeks to insert the word "knowingly". That limits the number of circumstances in which the offence could be deemed to have been committed.

The Countess of Mar: But the situation is already limited in the clause because it contains the word "knows". The noble Duke is adding the word "knowingly" when the person already knows. How can he knowingly do it when he already knows that he is doing it, if the noble Lord sees what I mean? Would he like to read the clause, please?

Lord Whitty: I think that that point is for the noble Duke.

The Duke of Montrose: So far as I can understand what the noble Countess was saying, I point out that Amendment No. 70 misses out the second "knows". It would leave out from "which" to the second "has".

The Countess of Mar: Oh! I am sorry. I apologise.

Lord Whitty: I shall keep out of this.
	I make it clear in relation to Amendment No. 71 that in most cases it will be an inspector who will be impeded but that there will be situations—for example, when a slaughterman or technical advisers are needed—in which people act under the instructions of the inspector. Impeding their activities should be deemed to be an offence. We may have to sharpen up the relevant provisions in the regulations. It is clear that we need to cover that eventuality, as well as the situation involving inspectors per se.

The Duke of Montrose: It still seems that we should do well to try to tighten up the description in the Bill and not leave in the phrase "any other person". Perhaps we can go away and think about this; in which case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 17, line 20, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Greaves: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 65:
	Page 17, line 21, at end insert "subject to section 36C (1A)"

Lord Greaves: I apologise for asking for the indulgence of the Committee at this time of night. Amendment No. 65 is a victim of the six-month time lag between the amendment being tabled and the Committee sitting. I do not agree with Amendment No. 65 and I do not wish to move it. I give notice that I shall move Amendment No. 67, but I do not intend to move Amendment No. 65.

[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 17, line 26, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Greaves: moved Amendment No. 67:
	Page 17, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 18 and insert—
	"(1) It shall be an offence knowingly to misrepresent the status of a sheep, or its eggs or semen, as scrapie free.
	(2) An inspector may at any time require for inspection any relevant records to establish the movements and breeding history of that sheep."

Lord Greaves: In moving Amendment No. 67, the Committee may feel that it will be a plus point if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 72, 75, 78, 79, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey and are in the next group of amendments. It might speed up matters a little.
	These are important amendments and, late though it may be, this is an important discussion. In a sense, this is where civil liberties meet the countryside. I fear that in some quarters the attitude towards and promotion of civil liberties that noble Lords and many other people would wish to see changes when it comes to the countryside and farms. Some people have a fog in front of their eyes, their brains stop working and they think, "Oh, it is the countryside. It is different".
	But civil liberties are indivisible. One person's liberties are another person's liberties, and if they are removed from one group of people they diminish the liberties of everyone else. When the state takes powers to deprive people of what they would normally expect to be their personal liberties and personal freedoms—such as the freedom to decide who should come into their homes and to control and look after their property—it is important that these liberties are taken away only for good reasons.
	The powers that the state takes to itself should be both proportionate and necessary in the circumstances. We believe that many of the powers set out in proposed new Sections 36F to 36J are neither proportionate nor necessary. The Government should look at them again in the light of the problem that Schedule 2 seeks to address.
	Proposed new Section 36H appears to be identical to the provisions set out earlier in the Bill in relation to foot and mouth disease. But the powers that the state may require to control a highly-infectious, rapidly-spreading outbreak such as foot and mouth disease are not necessarily the same in terms of proportion and necessity as those required to control an entirely different kind of disease. Important though it is to control and attempt to eradicate it, the situation is different, and the powers and the circumstances in which they are exercised should also be different.
	We believe that many of the powers are heavy-handed; that they should not be exercised without far greater controls and balances; and that the timescale laid down for many of them is unnecessarily fast—in many cases it is extremely fast—in relation to the need set out. Overall, there is an in-built assumption of guilt—the idea that the animal owners and controllers concerned are guilty, and must therefore be treated as such—in the extent and the nature of these powers which ought not to be there. One has only to think what would happen if these kinds of powers, for these kinds of purposes, were applied to other businesses. There would be a huge outcry. It is only because farmers and other people who live in the countryside have still not fully recovered from the swingeing blows that they received during the foot and mouth outbreak that the outcry against them is not much greater. A more normal, more leisurely process with built-in checks and balances, such as normally applies when people exercise powers of this nature, ought to apply.
	It is late, but this is an important issue. Perhaps I may quickly run through some of the issues that arise. It is our view that the offences set out in new Section 36F are excessive and disproportionate. What the Government want to do could be achieved without quite such a heavy-handed and swingeing set of powers. The situation may be very different in the case of foot and mouth, where urgent action is required and where extraordinary powers may be necessary. Indeed, the Government's arguments for the new powers have been that foot and mouth presents an extraordinary situation which has to be tackled with immediacy. That is not so in the case of scrapie.
	The power to force entry is set out without even the requirement for a warrant, as set out in new Section 36H. The power of entry in new Section 36G does not require a warrant. It is only when people refuse entry, or "a refusal is expected"—whatever that may mean—that the provisions of new Section 36H appear to come into effect and a warrant is required. That is unusual and abnormal.
	If the police believe that a serious offence is being committed in a building, they might well break into the building in order to stop it. But we are not talking about that level of criminality. We are not talking about any serious level of criminality. We are talking about trying to find a reasonable, sensible and proportionate way to deal with an animal disease which, if there is a slight delay, will not cause any huge problems. The disease has been with us for 250 years. Whether it is eradicated in six, seven, eight or 10 years' time is not of the order of importance that justifies this kind of provision.
	Normally, people wishing to exercise many of the powers set out in the Bill must first apply to a court. But that is not the case here. The kind of powers that usually require a warrant from a magistrate are exercisable without one. The kind of powers normally exercisable only after application to the court are exercisable with a warrant from a justice of the peace.
	Our Amendment No. 78 refers to new Section 36H(3) relating to warrants. The subsection sets out the condition that,
	"admission to the premises has been refused or a refusal is expected".
	What does that mean? Again, the Government may argue that such a provision is necessary in relation to foot and mouth or to other highly infectious diseases—although we may well wish to challenge that when we debate that part of the Bill. However, to put in the suggestion that a refusal is expected before anyone has found out whether there will be one is excessive. It is another assumption of guilt that ought not to be made in such a situation.
	The third condition is that,
	"the case is one of urgency".
	What urgency is there with scrapie? The only example that the Minister produced earlier was that someone might be using a ram for breeding and the authorities might want to stop that. At the worst, all that does is put off the process for 12 months. We have had the problem for 250 years. The Minister wants to get rid of it, as do we, but the measures must be sensible and proportionate. The provisions set out in the Bill are neither.
	I look for support from the Committee and I await what the Minister has to say in justification of what we consider to be his heavy-handed, rather draconian approach. I beg to move.

Viscount Simon: I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 67 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 68 to 71 due to pre-emption.

Lord Jopling: I have agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said during our debates, but I am not terribly happy about the amendment. I am not sure whether the proposal in the Bill is too strong. I am anxious to hear how the Minister justifies it. However, the amendment is too loose.
	I say that for one good reason. I remember the intense irritation in the north of England a few years ago over the spread of another sheep disease—sheep scab. It had been rampant throughout the country for many years, but following a tremendous campaign, which was largely voluntary and backed by a minimum of government regulation, we thought for years that sheep scab had been eliminated. It then reappeared in the south-west of England, entirely due to dilatory farm management and sloppy sheep husbandry. This most distressing disease then spread again right through the country. I remember wondering whether it would be necessary to introduce much stronger regulations to control it. I came to the conclusion years ago that the existing regulations controlling sheep scab were not strict enough and were not being sufficiently strictly enforced.
	I have the feeling that the amendment is too loose. I would be very unhappy to support it because the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has gone too far the other way. The Government's proposal may be somewhat too strong, but I reserve my judgment on that until I hear the Minister's response. How strongly enforcement of the law is carried out is a matter of fine balance. My experience with sheep scab leads me to believe that one needs to be pretty tough about it.

The Countess of Mar: I am awfully sorry to have to give the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, another history lesson. Sheep scab was eradicated in this country in 1952 after compulsory dipping at which police constables had to be present. It was very strictly enforced at that time. Sheep scab came back into this country in 1972 from a flock imported from Ireland on to the Yorkshire-Lancashire borders. Sheep scab was discovered, and the sheep were dipped with MAFF inspectors present. Very unfortunately, the MAFF inspectors did not check that the dip was a scab dip. That is how it spread. There have been dilatory farmers; I make no pretence about that. However, that is the history of sheep scab and dipping.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that there is some need for the law to enforce the intentions behind this plan. However, we have a lot of "mays" instead of "shalls" here. I hope to hear from the Minister that the "mays" will be enforced with a very light rein and that a heavy hand will be used only when it is absolutely necessary and someone has been truly defiant.

Lord Whitty: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that Amendment No. 67 would leave us with a very weak offence. It deletes all the offences relating to this part of the Bill, and replaces them with the rather difficult to establish and not always relevant issue of misrepresentation. So I really could not accept Amendment No. 67.
	Amendment No. 72 and the other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned relate in one way or another to the entry powers in relation to scrapie. We should understand the context in which the powers would be used. The noble Lord is clearly right that there is much less necessity for such power when we are carrying out an improvement and breeding policy than when we are dealing with an epidemic of a virulent disease. That is certainly true. I say to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that, to that degree, the "may" would be exerted with a relatively light hand. Even then, however, there may be situations in which there is unhelpful resistance frustrating accomplishment of the plan and entry is required.
	I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, aright when he said that exercise of the power in proposed new Section 36G does not require a warrant. It does. The provision is operable only with consent. If there is opposition there would not be consent and one would have to apply for a warrant under proposed new Section 36H. Therefore, one always has to go for a warrant when enforcing entry against the will of the owner or occupier. The justice of the peace would clearly have to consider whether it was reasonable in all circumstances to seek to enforce entry. The balance of reasonableness will necessarily be different in cases involving implementation of the national sheep scrapie plan as against cases involving eradication of foot and mouth.
	I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is exaggerating the extent to which this represents a serious erosion of civil liberties. However, as I know that there are anxieties, I intend to examine these powers and see whether we can make provision or give an assurance to ensure that that context is better understood, to make it clear that we do not envisage behaving in a draconian manner. The decision to take such action would be based on reasonableness and would be proportionate to the circumstances.

Baroness Byford: I wanted to hear the Minister's reply to these important amendments before contributing. I can partly understand the Government's dilemma. They have to balance a bit of stick with a bit of carrot, and sometimes it is difficult to know how much of each is necessary to achieve the goal. I think that the most important point made in this debate is that the action should be proportionate. We are not talking about the emergency provisions to which we shall return after the Summer Recess. The provisions we are discussing deal with the important matter of the eradication of scrapie. The Government expect access and are demanding this, that and the other in a manner that is not proportionate or appropriate to their end task.
	Although I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, I have difficulty in supporting the wording of Amendment No. 67. I was greatly encouraged—I hope that the noble Lord was also encouraged—when the Minister said that he would at least consider the measure we are discussing and some of the other measures which we shall discuss tonight. I hope that that signifies an acceptance on the part of the Government that the measure in the Bill is too strong.

Lord Greaves: I agree with the comments which have been made about Amendment No. 67. However, it is a legacy of what I was left with six months ago. I decided to move it as a probing amendment to determine the Minister's thinking on the matter. The amendments that comprise wholesale deletions cannot be anything other than probing. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am encouraged by the Minister's response. It is always encouraging to hear a Minister say that he will spend part of his precious summer holidays considering whether legislation might be improved. I look forward to hearing the results of that consideration when we return in the autumn, hopefully more sunburnt than we are now. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 68 to 72 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 18, line 6, leave out "at all reasonable times" and insert "between 9 am and 5 p.m. (Monday to Friday)"

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 73, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 74, 76, 77, 79 and 80. As regards Amendment No. 73, this is not an exercise that requires to be precipitated in any helter-skelter fashion. The hours proposed in the amendment do not attempt to define the hours during which a livestock farmer works but tie in with the fact that most livestock farmers will have to carryout their duties, daily chores and inspections by nine o'clock in the morning and often much earlier. They will be in a more receptive mood to talk to officials who appear from nine o'clock onwards. The amendment seeks to persuade the Government to accept that it is better for officials to visit farmers between certain times rather than at a time which may not be convenient for farmers.
	Amendment No. 73 proposes that officials should visit farmers between nine in the morning and five at night Monday to Friday. No doubt the Minister will say that such a provision is unreasonable and that officials should not be restricted to gaining access at certain times. However, the situation we are discussing does not constitute an emergency. There was a long discussion on the matter in the other place. We consider that it is reasonable for officials to visit farmers between nine in the morning and five at night. I should have thought that those hours were also reasonable from the point of view of officials. However, that is another matter.
	As regards Amendment No. 74, we believe that it is an unnecessary burden on livestock owners to have to demand that an official shows evidence of his authority to take certain action. The very appearance of an inspector will engender a high degree of stress. The livestock owner will have to cope with a vast array of decisions. We believe that the phrase "if required" is unnecessary and we should like it to be deleted.
	Amendment No. 76 seeks to leave out the words,
	"sworn information in writing",
	and insert,
	"application to his court".
	We were not sure why the Government wanted to have sworn information in writing. Was it because they were precluding the person in question from going to a court or a magistrate? Again, I should be grateful for an explanation on that matter from the Minister.
	With regard to Amendment No. 77, the Bill as it stands will allow representatives of DEFRA to seek a warrant on the basis of a sworn statement alleging non-co-operation for someone who, at this stage, has no right to argue his case. That is why I was particularly anxious about the issue of the court. The amendment simply allows for the possibility that a farmer may have valid reasons, unknown to the department, for opposing entry at the time or in the circumstance requested. In view of the accusations levelled at certain employees of the ministry during the recent foot and mouth outbreak, and particularly as this matter relates to scrapie rather than emergency measures, that would seem eminently reasonable.
	I turn to Amendment No. 79. I have been cudgelling my brains—they are becoming more difficult to cudgel at this time of night—to think of circumstances in which, in the pursuit of scrapie identification, giving notice of the intention to apply for a warrant would defeat the object of entering. I cannot see that happening. Would anyone hide a sheep to avoid a sample being taken for genotyping—perhaps certain noble Lords believe that that would happen—or would someone deliberately wipe his computer data rather than have his records examined? That seems to me to be on a par with six o'clock dawn raids and prohibiting a farmer and his family from leaving the farm or even talking to neighbours. I believe that the provision is unnecessary and, as such, should not be part of the Bill.
	With regard to Amendment No. 80, it is unfortunately true that not all magistrates remember to date warrants as they sign them. It is also unfortunately true that warrants arrive for signature with the date already appended. In view of new Section 36H(5), the Bill should ensure that so far as possible the validation of a warrant cannot be illegally extended to accommodate the shortcomings, work overload or any other concerns of those who carry out the court mandate. I believe that any form of paperwork should, in any case, be dated—even more so in this case.
	I am sorry that this is a rather odd group of amendments, but I hope that my explanation of them has been sufficient. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I consider Amendment No. 73 to be extremely practical so far as concerns practice in normal farm situations. There is nothing more annoying than if, in the middle of the morning milking session, for example, someone comes in and asks questions when one is trying to get the cups onto the next cow, or whatever. It seems to me essential that—

Lord Carter: But let us suppose that the official arrives in the middle of the afternoon milking session. That takes place between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Let us suppose that the farmer milks three times a day. That does happen. I consider the proposed hours to be sensible and acceptable. Evening milking is another matter. It is sometimes more flexible than morning milking because, then, one is waiting for the tanker to arrive. However, that is another matter. I consider Amendment No. 73 to be essential.
	I turn to the other amendments. Amendment No. 77, for example, refers to sworn information, as does Amendment No. 76. I believe that that allows for justices of the peace to accept various situations when a person is operating on the farm.
	In certain circumstances there are valid reasons for a farmer prohibiting entry to the farm. As to clarifying the situation, there are a number of principles involved. I agree with what has been said on Amendment No. 79 about leaving out lines 31 and 32. When one first reads them, they appear rather obscure.
	As to Amendment No. 80, it is common sense that the warrant must be dated, otherwise many problems could arise. That is essential.

The Countess of Mar: I have a little difficulty with Amendment No 73 regarding the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. If an inspector called at our farm between nine and five on a Monday to Thursday, he would find no one there. I am here and my husband is teaching. If he called on a Friday that would be all right because I would be there. We should allow for more flexibility. There are many farmers, particularly small farmers such as my husband and myself, who need to earn their bread in other places. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that in relation to her amendment.
	I wait to hear what the Minister has to say on the other amendments.

Lord Jopling: If the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is going to be at her farm by nine o'clock tomorrow morning—Friday—she either will have a late-night drive or will have to get up very early in the morning in order to get there. That is a matter for her.
	I am a little bothered about this business of entry. Subsection (2) of proposed new Section 36G talks about subsection (1), the power that states:
	"An inspector or a constable may at all reasonable times enter any premises for the purpose of".
	I am bothered by what follows, namely, that that will not apply,
	"to premises used only as a private dwelling-house unless 24 hours' notice of the intended entry is given to the occupier".
	Can the Minister say what exactly is meant by "only as a private dwelling-House"? There are awful problems here. One can understand the basis of subsection (1) which talks about entering any premises. That is presumably what would be regarded as a farmhouse, a farm office or going into the buildings or fields where livestock are kept. But I do not understand why a farmhouse, which presumably is covered, should be treated differently from a domestic dwelling-house which may be attached to the farm.
	Many farms have a bungalow attached to them where perhaps a farmer's son or a farmer's widowed mother lives. It is not classified as a farmhouse. Both—the son or the widowed mother—might do the books and keep all the accounts.
	I do not see how one differentiates between premises in subsection (1) and private dwelling-houses in subsection (2). We really should know what is the definition of a private dwelling-house which is only used as a private dwelling-house. Does that mean someone living in a house which is private who has no connection with the farm except through being employed to look after the books and the farm office in premises separate to the farm? It is confusing. I do not understand why one has to make the difference. Therefore, I do not see why 24 hours' notice cannot be given in all circumstances covering both subsections (1) and (2).
	It would be much more satisfactory to state that entry could be obtained between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Monday to Friday, provided that 24 hours' notice had been given. I do not think that in any such cases, people would hide or destroy evidence if they were given 24 hours' notice or need the mystery call in which someone knocked on the door unexpected and demanded entry. Unless the Minister can explain it, I do not understand why it is necessary to mount unexpected raids on farm premises for those purposes.

Lord Whitty: On Amendment No. 73, I find it slightly ironic that we are discussing reasonable times at this hour of the night. The noble Countess says that what are reasonable times for one person are not necessarily so for others. A certain amount of judgment must be exercised by inspectors according to the premises and the normal pattern of work and living. The terms "reasonable times" and "reasonable hours" are used in much legislation—most notably, as an equivalent to this provision, in the Food Safety Act 1990. Such provision is appropriate here, and pinning down the hours to nine to five is too prescriptive and could in some circumstances be counter-productive.
	I do not fully follow the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about why we should treat dwelling houses differently from other premises. It is reasonable that they should be treated with some greater respect. I think that what he is really objecting to is no-notice appearance anywhere. But almost all forms of inspector have some rights to turn up without notice. The main exception that we propose to that relates to premises that are used as dwelling space.
	Amendment No. 74 is about evidence of authority. Indeed, all of the rest of the amendments concern how we enforce the power of entry. I have already said, but I repeat in response to this group of amendments, that I will consider how those provisions are expressed to see whether they can give less of an appearance of being draconian and demanding that everything be treated as an emergency.
	However, some of the amendments are spurious. Amendment No. 74, for example, demands that constables or inspectors must show evidence. The regulations under which that procedure will be carried out already requires them to show evidence of their authority. Amendment No. 76 is, again, too restrictive. It would substantially change how warrants generally are dealt with, as well as limiting how we enforce this part of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 77, which deals with representation, would also alter the general procedure for warrant provision. We must be careful, if we are using a procedure that is well known and understood, that we do not impose qualifications on it. For example, if people are worried about civil liberties issues in this respect, for the record, the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the procedure is fair. It is always possible for the person affected to take the matter direct to the High Court to seek an injunction to block a warrant. If we remove or place too great a restriction on the warrant procedure, we are effectively saying that the only way that it can be enforced is to go to the High Court in the first place. That would place too onerous a burden on the enforcers.
	Amendment No. 80 relates to the signing of warrants. The regulations relating to warrants mean that a time-limited warrant must be signed if it is to have effect. It must also confirm an expiry date. That is already covered in the general provisions on warrants. Some versions have greater precision.
	Some of the anxieties that lie behind the amendments are misplaced. However, I take the point that we ought, perhaps, to consider the powers of entry in toto, as I said.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that response and for his willingness to consider the amendments again.
	With regard to Amendment No. 74, I do not understand why we need the phrase "if required" in the Bill. Anybody calling on one's property—be it the gas man, the water man or a policeman—will always be asked for some proof of identity. I cannot see why the words "if required" should be in; surely, it will happen automatically. I am intrigued by that issue, but it is a thought for another time; I am not particularly worried about it now.
	I take the points made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about the timing of visits to farms. On some farms, it will be a job to find somebody in at any time. However, it is unreasonable to call in the middle of the night, as, unfortunately, happened during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I know that this part of the Bill does not relate to foot and mouth disease, but I hope that we will have a more robust discussion about such things in the autumn, when we cover that issue. The Bill gives powers of entry and grants warrants about which the ordinary member of the public, on whose land the inspectors are to impose themselves, has no form of recourse. There is nobody to stand up for the public. People will arrive on someone's doorstep, and there will be nobody there to defend that person. That is not right, and I am glad that the Minister is to consider Amendment No. 77.
	With regard to Amendment No. 79, I know that the warrants must be dated. I will need to read Hansard, but I think that the Minister said that they would give the expiry date. I want to ensure that the warrant includes the date on which it was issued, not just the date on which it will run out. Perhaps I did not make that clear.
	I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that the provisions in this Part may be too draconian—that is the right word. The Government have recognised that and will give the matter further thought. We are all anxious to encourage people to help eradicate scrapie. On the other hand, we must protect people's lifestyle. There is nothing more frightening than having someone call after dark, as happened to me the other night. They were not there for anything to do with scrapie. These days, people in the country hesitate to open their door after dark.
	When the Minister is considering additions to the Bill, he should think again, in particular, about the section that suggests that 24 hours' notice be given. It seems sensible to give such notice, regardless of whether it is a visit to a dwelling-house or a general visit. As my noble friend the Duke of Montrose said, quite a few dwelling-houses are also used for businesses, and some of the outhouses are used for businesses and might be the office to which a person might wish to go. There are aspects of this part of the Bill that the Minister will need to consider. I am grateful to him for offering to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 74 to 80 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 19, line 2 , at end insert—
	"(b) such equipment as he thinks necessary."

Lord Whitty: This amendment is needed to make it expressly clear that inspectors will be allowed to take on to the premises any equipment that they need to carry out their tasks. One could say that it may be presumed that an inspector would carry the relevant equipment. However, in theory, there is potential for dispute about that. This amendment is therefore necessary to clarify the position. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: Will the Minister tell us what kind of equipment he anticipates will be necessary? Is it handcuffs, shovels and spades, halters for animals or whips?

Lord Whitty: The noble Countess is letting her imagination run riot. What we have in mind is equipment necessary to carry out the tasks: blood; tubes; needles; syringes; possibly vaccines; identification kits; and, in the case of slaughter, guns and apparatus with which to dispose of the animal. It would be equipment relevant to the task in hand.

Lord Greaves: If it is relevant to the task, why does not the amendment say so?

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Page 19, leave out lines 3 to 5.

The Duke of Montrose: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 84.
	Amendment No. 82 deals with the requirement to give assistance. It is somewhat unfortunate that I have to move Amendment No. 82 before the next amendment, tabled by the Minister, which refers to any person who falls within subsection (3A). My lack of expertise in the drafting of amendments means that I spent a little time hunting around for Section (3A). I looked through the 1981 Act, which is what we are amending, and I could not find it in there. It is probably to be found in new Section 36H of the current amendments, which concerns people who are refused entry. It would be slightly odd to force someone to assist who had been refused entry.
	The amendment offers two ways of getting around the fact that one cannot always legislate for the health and ability of human beings. It is possible that some of those on the farm premises may be sick or infirm, may have a broken leg or may be visitors who have an allergy to sheep and therefore would not want to become involved. In view of the fact that they could be charged with refusing to give assistance, something needs to be said about evaluating their abilities before they are asked to give assistance.
	Another question that has exercised my mind is: who will be liable for injuries or losses on the premises when the inspector requires various works to be done? Injuries are certainly liable to happen with cattle. We are not dealing with cattle here, but I can think of some black-faced rams that could cause a very nasty injury. The other question relates to whether there are sufficiently good handling facilities, so that people are not left to chase animals around endlessly.
	I feel that it should be possible for the inspector to assess the abilities of personnel on the premises and their willingness to participate. He also has the power to add as many other persons as he thinks fit. Therefore, the present wording of the Bill does not quite fit with what would be practical.
	It is also interesting to ask whether the authorities should be paying those who give assistance. The inspector will have to pay those who he brings with him. Here we are talking not about testing and evaluating but about the enforcement of warrants. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 82 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 inclusive.

Lord Whitty: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, in responding to the noble Duke's amendment, I speak to my Amendments Nos. 83 and 86. They relate to some of the problems referred to by the noble Duke and they address concerns expressed in another place in line with what he has said.
	My honourable friend Elliot Morley said that we would look at the matter. We are sympathetic to the suggestion of whether, for the sake of clarity, the powers of requiring assistance should be limited to the owner or the keeper of the animals, or persons under their control. Therefore, other members of the family, bystanders and visitors would not be covered by any requirement to assist the inspector. Likewise, the requirement in the original draft that the inspector would deem what was necessary for his needs should be replaced. Our Amendment No. 85 deals with what is reasonably required instead of what the inspector decides he reasonably needs. That goes a long way towards meeting the anxieties.

The Countess of Mar: I am a little concerned about subsection (3A)(c) of Amendment No. 86. The words "under the direction or control" are used. Why not say "in the employ of" or "assisting the person mentioned with his stock"? Who controls people these days? It is strange terminology and I would ask the Minister to look at it again.

Lord Whitty: I will look further at it.

Lord Greaves: We on these Benches welcome the change of wording from the Government. The idea that the vicar turning up for Sunday tea or a rambler walking across a footpath could be roped into assist in the activities is of concern. The provision is welcome as it is much more sensible.
	However, I want to press the Minister on the words,
	"under the direction or control of a person mentioned ... ".
	He said that it would not include the person's family, but children are clearly under the control of their parents. Can he give a clear assurance that the wording would not include, for instance, 13, 14 and 15 year-old children who ought not to be involved in the slaughter of livestock.

Lord Whitty: If the noble Lord thinks that 13, 14 and 15 year-old children are under control, his is a different experience from mine. Nevertheless, in response to the noble Countess, I have undertaken to consider whether the wording is right.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I believe that 13, 14 and 15 year-old children are the very ones you would want to chase the animals to get hold of them. The younger ones might be more difficult.
	A person's ability should be included in the provisions. A person should not be liable merely because he is present. I can think of many occasions in my part of the world when some old boy of about 85 takes great delight in checking the sheep every day and reporting back. If he thought that the sheep were being taken in and inspected for some purpose, he might want to watch. He would then be asked to assist and if he did not he would be infringing this part of the Bill. The tractorman might have broken a leg the day before, so there needs to be a little flexibility in the measure.
	I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 83:
	Page 19, line 3, after "premises" insert "who falls within subsection (3A)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 19, line 4, leave out "reasonably needs" and insert "may reasonably require"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 86:
	Page 19, line 5, at end insert—
	"(3A) The following persons fall within this subsection—
	(a) the occupier of the premises;
	(b) a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises;
	(c) a person appearing to the inspector to be under the direction or control of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)."

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I do not propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 90. The hour is late. I think that it was the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House who said yesterday that debates beyond 10 o'clock are really not worth while. I shall want to debate the matter more fully.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 87 to 90 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Page 19, line 26, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Page 19, line 30, after "make" insert "an order or"

Lord Whitty: New Section 36L of the Bill provides for any regulations to be exercisable by statutory instrument and subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative procedure. The amendment extends that power so that it applies also to orders made for the same purpose. I think that that objective will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 95:
	Page 19, line 35, at end insert—
	""assessor" means a person holding a veterinary qualification and farm animal experience but who is neither a civil servant nor a government employee;"

Baroness Byford: The Minister indicated that he will return to the issue of assessors. I do not need to add more. I am happy to accept his word that he will consider the matter.
	Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 95A. It is important. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter. As the noble Lord will have gathered from the debates today there is great concern about achieving a balance between the eradication of scrapie and allowing a natural period of time. I shall refer to the matter more fully on Report. Perhaps the Minister will indicate that he is also willing to consider this issue. I beg to move Amendment No. 95.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 95 is covered in my undertaking to look at the whole issue of appeals and assessments. With regard to Amendment No. 95A, I appreciate the brief explanation given by the noble Baroness in moving it. Indeed, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for ensuring that we have finished this allocation of the Bill during the course of the day. We should all feel gratified that we have done so.
	Returning to Amendment No. 95A, I cannot quite give the noble Baroness the degree of comfort that she seeks. I must indicate that to constrain ourselves to such a time-scale at this stage is something that I would resist.

Baroness Byford: I do not seek to tie the Minister down to the amendment. I seek only his assurance that he is willing to take this away and at least consider how a balance between the voluntary programme and pushing forward with the scheme might be discussed further on Report.

Lord Whitty: I am certainly prepared to look again at the balance between the practicalities and speeding up the programmes. In principle we shall be able to return to the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No 95A not moved.]
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at five minutes past midnight.